Offer view-reading-page-by-date links when there are no more ?skip= to show

[azurelunatic]

Title:
Offer view-reading-page-by-date links when there are no more ?skip= to show

Area:
paid features, reading page

Summary:
The reading page is available by date to paid users, by adding ?date=YYYY-MM-DD instead of ?skip=N. Why not link to the appropriate date after the page has run out of entries?

Description:
Entries no longer show in the normal flow of the reading page after 2 weeks/1000 entries, whichever comes first. However, paid users can view their reading pages by date (though at least in my style there's no link to other days, just other pages of entries on that day).

This feature is relatively little-known, and one does have to remember the date form. Offering the links to users who can use them would be a perfectly natural and intuitive way for people who have never heard of it to discover it.

(Offering the links and then displaying a message that you have to have a paid account to use them might be mean; displaying a message about the feature in lieu of a tantalizing link might be good incentive for an upgrade.)

In order to avoid skipping entries, the link should be to the same day as the last entry on the page, even though this would cause some overlap. This might cause a bit of confusion, but a bit of confusion is better than skipped entries. (Though if it is easy to tell which entries would overlap and offer the date link to skip that many, that would be really shiny.)

Poll #2220 Offer view-reading-page-by-date links when there are no more ?skip= to show

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 27

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
26 (96.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
1 (3.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
0 (0.0%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Link to other days from /read?date=YYYY-MM-DD

[azurelunatic]

Title:
Link to other days from /read?date=YYYY-MM-DD

Area:
reading page, paid features

Summary:
Link to the previous and next day when viewing the reading page by date.

Description:
When viewing the reading page by date, at least in my style, there are only ?skip= links, and not links to the previous and next dates. It would make for a more intuitive use of this feature if these links were available.

One could have these in two ways.

1) Link to date only when there is no ?skip going in the indicated direction. For example, on /read?date=2020-01-01, a link to /read?skip=20&date=2010-01-01 (previous) and /read?date=2010-01-02 (next), and only link to 2009-12-31 once there is no more previous for 2010-01-01.

2) Link to previous and next date in addition to the ?skip= links.


If you have a preference on which of these should be done, please say so in comments.

Poll #2221 Link to other days from /read?date=YYYY-MM-DD

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 26

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
25 (96.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
1 (3.8%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Show date used on invite codes

[cesy]

Title:
Show date used on invite codes

Area:
invite codes

Summary:
On the invite codes page, change "Sent on" to be "Sent on/Used on" and include the date used for codes used directly, not sent by email.

Description:
On the manage invite codes page, if you sent an invite code by email, it shows date sent as well as the email address. If you give a code to someone and they use it directly, not by email, then it doesn't show a date at all. It would be useful to see a date used, so those codes sort properly into the timeline.

Poll #2222 Show date used on invite codes

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
18 (60.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
5 (16.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
7 (23.3%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Permit journal owners to view and moderate comments on comments-disabled entries

[niqaeli]

Title:
Permit journal owners to view and moderate comments on comments-disabled entries

Area:
journal administration, comments

Summary:
Make it possible for the journal owner to view and moderate comments on entries that have had comments disabled.

Description:
Currently if comments are disabled on a post after comments have been made, the comments continue to exist but there is no way for the journal owner to view or moderate those comments without re-enabling comments.

Basically, I want the journal owner to be able to view and moderate comments, even after they've been disabled on an entry. This could basically just be a view of the comments page, with the reply links and whatnot disabled but all other moderation tools available. Obviously this would need to be a view *only* the journal owner can access.

This would be really useful in a number of situations, but off the top of my head: if a journal or entry comes under either spam or troll attack and is being defaced, it would allow the journal owner to shut down the public display of comments while permitting them to clean things up in their own time.

More flexible comment moderation tools in general might help reduce the need for this but even then, it could still be useful. And as it stands right now, we still have pretty limited tools. This would at least let people have better access to those tools.

I honestly don't see much of a downside to be had to this, in terms of user experience. I can't think of how it would be detrimental to anyone's use of the site, and it would provide functionality that lets people have more control over their space.

Poll #2253 Permit journal owners to view and moderate comments on comments-disabled entries

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 42

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
34 (81.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (16.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (2.4%)

(I have no opinion)
0 (0.0%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)