That was my thought too. It can be also useful for admins to be able to grant Basic level manually – I don’t know if this is possible.
I’m totally with discourse on the trust topic, and provided model should work ok with conversation platform. But as this is a support resource, the conversations model don’t fully apply to new users seeking help.
I thought maybe we can (should?) think collectively a bit on this topic.
Sorry, I thought I’d replied to this already, but apparently not!
At the moment, we’re using the defaults Discourse provides. They’ve come up with these to fit in with the trust system that the platform is based on:
Some of this can be tweaked, some of it cannot. I’d rather stick to the default parameters tbh.
I’m not sure if we need to tweak them, though. If you look at the post, getting to the “Basic user” trust level where all these restrictions are removed is quite easy. Maybe we should help users understand trust levels and encourage them to read other posts as per the system design first?
Yes, it is a support resource, but a community based support resource—not the standard “vendor <–> user” support resource. So, the model here is a bit different. “Users” aren’t users here in the same way. “Users” are also contributors/developers, and as more “users” turn into contributors, the standard of support improves. So the focus isn’t on simply troubleshooting “users”. It’s on educating them so that they may in turn be able to help others.
For completeness: on a “vendor<–> user” support instance, the vendor takes a chunk out of the resources earned from its users to be provide them with support, mostly in the form of money that can be used to hire support staff. This cannot apply to a community based project, since we do not earn resources from “users” in the same way. The only resource we can earn from “users” is their time and effort when they also start contributing.
This is why, in general, you’ll see seasoned helpers on community support platforms not simply giving “users” the answers but taking them through the diagnostic process so the “users” may learn and be able to help themselves and others in the future.
PS: I use “users” in quotes everywhere to stress that the “users” in a community project are different from the “users” in a standard “vendor <-> user” project.
Yes—totally worth a good brainstorm. Finding the right way to help people is always something we tend to struggle with.
We don’t want them to ask a question, receive the answer, and go away. But we also don’t want them to ask a question, wait for a week to learn how to find the answer, and then go away. We want them ask a question, learn how to find and fix their issue, fix it, enjoy the process and understand how the community model works, and then stay to help others.