Hey, question! Some of you have noticed that some follow requests appear as follow requests even though your account is not locked. This is a sort of "junk" filter system and based on your server's moderators decisions (not algorithm). We're adding a message that explains this to the follow requests screen, how does this text sound?
"While your account is not locked, follow requests from accounts your server's staff has deemed suspicious require manual review for your safety"
@gargron not sure about the 'for your safety' bit
@mewmew Would like to avoid overloading end-users with internal moderator jargon whenever possible
@mewmew I'm struggling to come up with a different way to explain it, because the word "silence" is far from self-explanatory in practice
i'd say it should be simpler. "the <<instance name>> staff think this follow request might be suspicious. please confirm."
@Gargron maybe "your instance's staff"?
@datenschutzratgeber We consistently use "server" instead of "instance" in our UI text since a few years ago
@Gargron Oh, ok. I am highly up to date – sincerely, Your Internet Explorer
@Gargron I like it
@Gargron Thank you very much for your guidance, they are good for those of us who are starting this new anti-hegemonic experience
@Gargron Good text, and a good idea to add this explanation. It's a cool feature so it's worth adding this text to explain why, what and how. 👌
@Gargron "want to manually review these accounts" perhaps.
@Gargron What is the exact scenario when this happens? I'd suggest putting more factual information in the message, and less vague text ("server staff thought" or "you might want to"). So if it's when moderators have chosen to 'block' the server, the message could be:
The moderators of [server name] have decided to block [other server name]. Therefore, you have to manually review follow requests from their users.
This also increases user autonomy since they get some insight in how it works.
I'd also go with more generic message, skipping the “even though your account is not locked”, because user knows it already and it would look weird if there are more than one request.
But I can't think of any other variant to suggest ATM. Thought of “marked suspicious by staff”, but this is not the actual case.
“The [domain/user] requires manual follow review per admins' decision.”… nah
A lot better than the previous one.
@Gargron Maybe break up the text into two sentences to reduce wordiness? I'm just nitpicking, though. 🙂
"While your account is not locked, manual review is still required for these follow requests. These accounts have been deemed potentially suspicious or unsafe by your server's staff."
Or it can be rearranged
"While your account is not locked, manual review is still required for follow requests from accounts your server's staff has deemed potentially suspicious or unsafe."
@Gargron si, a mi me ha pasado, ya lo encontraba raro si.
No se no se, ¿sospechosa? ¿De que? ¿Por que?¿Para quien lo es?
No me gusta.
A mi personalmente me sobra.
Y no me dice lo del texto que pones de advertencia.
Solo veo botón aceptar o eliminar debajo de la cuenta que no he querido que salga en la imagen.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!