Jump to content
Sketch

Trade hub "information" page

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, MissK. said:

 

Completely forgot about this, if the IOU rule is indeed enforced on the hub (mods please correct me if this is not the case) then that absolutely needs to be clearly stated. Even if someone is on the forums, if they never use the threads to trade but only the hub they would have 0 reason to read those rules or to think that some might apply to their case, and therefore would have no idea. 

 

For this part, perhaps it could be some form of collapsible text? So sort of like how you click public trade to have the message show, but displaying more to begin with. For example, keep the bold warning with something along the lines of "trades not complying by the following rules can lead to etc etc", then have a clear Rules like you said, that opens collapsible text. If possible, perhaps a bit of the text could already be displayed but fading/some other indication that it is collapsible and clickable to expand it. (edit: I just realised I was probably thinking of this because of how long quotes currently display here, faded text with an expand option.) It might be at least a little bit more tempting than clicking a link to read the rules; at least for myself I can say I would be more likely to read something if I didn't have to go to a different page altogether, especially on mobile. 

 

Pretty sure no IOUs are enforced, so that needs to be spelled out too. Also, YES on collapsible text! That way you don't have to leave the page to view the rules, which you would if it were a link.

 

11 hours ago, Confused Cat said:

I think a list would be more easily recognizable as "something you have to read". The text that is there right now looks like "helpful information about this page" that users migh feel like they don't have to read if they can get the trade to work without it.
It should be a short as possible to make it easily understandable even for users who don't understand English very well.

(If you're not very familiar with the language, you can't just "skim through" to find out if you really need to read something. You may have to decipher and translate every single word to make sense of a text.)

Icons could help make it clear that it's a "do / don't" type of information.

 

I would like something like this:

 

Allowed:

 Information about what you are offering

 Information about what you want

Not allowed:

 Messages for one user

 Asking for a specific egg or hatchling that only one user owns*

 Spam (anything not related to the trade)

Links to other websites

 

YES YES! The icons are brilliant, and this is still really concise but clear!

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Confused Cat said:

I think a list would be more easily recognizable as "something you have to read". The text that is there right now looks like "helpful information about this page" that users migh feel like they don't have to read if they can get the trade to work without it.
It should be a short as possible to make it easily understandable even for users who don't understand English very well.

(If you're not very familiar with the language, you can't just "skim through" to find out if you really need to read something. You may have to decipher and translate every single word to make sense of a text.)

Icons could help make it clear that it's a "do / don't" type of information.

 

I would like something like this:

 

Allowed:

 Information about what you are offering

 Information about what you want

Not allowed:

 Messages for one user

 Asking for a specific egg or hatchling that only one user owns*

 Spam (anything not related to the trade)

Links to other websites

 

In case it doesn't show up on some browsers: there are green checkmarks / red Xs before each line.

 

(* I'm not happy with the phrasing here. It should explain more, but still be short and only use simple words...)

I decided to take this list verbatim (I do agree it can use some rewording, but it's a good enough sample for the purposes of my post) and do a quick and dirty inspect element to see what it would look like with whatever DC's basic styling is. So, if any spacing looks wonky or excessive, keep that in mind that I didn't touch any of that, and such things can easily be adjusted if something similar to this would be put into practice.

 

kfjdg.PNG.48e49c73bd56a72a94e70c2aec858d09.PNG

 

The only wording I changed when making this was for the warning at the very end, just as an example of how it could be reworded to better suit there being a more concrete list and tie in the site's ToS because obviously, there's a lot there that I feel like would automatically apply to trades in there that don't have to be put into the list (namely not harassing other users in this case). Hopefully this visual is helpful for people to get a better idea of what this proposal would look like.

Share this post


Link to post

Change disallowed to Not allowed.

 

Clarity for non-English speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Change disallowed to Not allowed.

 

Clarity for non-English speakers.

In my experience of writing things while keeping things in mind for non-native speakers, "disallowed" and "not allowed" are both comprehended by people and handled by translation tools just fine. Maybe for others it is different, but that's how it's been for me. Regardless, anything I wrote in there was basically stream of consciousness anyway, along with the fact that I agree with there needing to be tweaking in regards to the actual list. My intention was only to provide a basic visual so people could get an idea of what it'd look like.

If people want to work on making a more finalised set of stuff that's fine, as I think all of it is worth being looked over (each list bullet point, what is worth having an example provided, and any additional wording such as the warning message in my example), and if people collectively come together to make an improved list I'll gladly inspect element it.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh sure - I just spent most of my working life having to write for the public (aim for a reading age of 12, they said...), and that was one of the things I learned to avoid. Take as an example flammable vs inflammable. The latter was the correct usage in England - but because so many people misunderstood the prefix as meaning a negative, the US flammable has now taken over.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/flammable-or-inflammable

 

Simplest form of words usually reaches the maximum number of people. When you're setting up a trade, it's easier not to have to worry about a translation tool. Your list and mockup are brilliant - that was why I suggested amending it where it stood.

Share this post


Link to post

I've just merged the other thread we had on the Trading rules needing to be hashed out, since that thread wasn't as active, but since it was made in December last year and had some good points in it I didn't want to close it without including it in this discussion. That's why the thread's ballooned a few pages. All the content in this thread originally has been left as is.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

On 4/16/2021 at 4:28 PM, Commander Wymsy said:

I decided to take this list verbatim (I do agree it can use some rewording, but it's a good enough sample for the purposes of my post) and do a quick and dirty inspect element to see what it would look like with whatever DC's basic styling is. So, if any spacing looks wonky or excessive, keep that in mind that I didn't touch any of that, and such things can easily be adjusted if something similar to this would be put into practice.

 

kfjdg.PNG.48e49c73bd56a72a94e70c2aec858d09.PNG

 

 

This is good. I agree with fuzz that “Not Allowed” is clearer/better than “Disallowed.” 
 

A link should be provided to the site’s/forum’s hopefully newly created list of Trading Hub rules on the forum, so that players can read the rules in great detail.

 

I am STILL CONFUSED about the forum. I consider it ON SITE; it is PART of DC. Yet none of these rules cover it. I believe it should be OK to make a GENERAL statement (not specific to one person) that traders can contact you on the forum or that they can check your corresponding post in the forum trading area for more details. I thought this was allowed anyway. I believe I have asked about it several times. But there are always vague and conflicting answers. WHY should this be allowed? ⬇️⬇️⬇️

 

1. Because we allow people to do that on the forum in the trading threads; (we allow people on the forum who create a post in the trading threads to invite people to PM them if they have questions, etc.) ; and

2. Because the forums are part of the site, dragcave.net; and
3. Because it makes no sense to have different rules for the Trading Hub than for the trading threads on the forum; and

4. Because the text box area for the Trading Hub is very small and we cannot possibly always put in all of our requests. It makes sense to be able to make a general statement such as “see my post on the trading forum for more details”—of course, this is ONLY in addition to the —specific requests— you make in a Trading Hub post. In other words, you would not make a Trading Hub post without posting specific wants. You obviously post specific wants in a Trading Hub post. But, in the event that ALL of your specific Wants do not fit in the Trading Hub post, you can then direct people to the forum in order that they may see ALL of your trade “want” requests.

5. If #4 is not possible, then add a button for us to check off stating that we have a forum post so that people will know that we have also posted on the forum if they want to see more about our trade. (“Forum post?” “YES” “Contact on forum?” “YES”)

 

In addition, change the language in the box above to “such as loss of ability to create public trades and permanent banning from the Trading Hub.” Because so many people have been permanently banned from the trading hub (which IMO is ***not right***, since the Trading Hub rules have been vague when compared to the many rules listed in great detail on the forum), if violating a trading rule is going to resort to such a drastic action, when people don’t have a clear idea of the vague rules, then they should definitely state that they are permanently banning people. 
 

But truly, I can see no need for a permanent ban unless someone is doing something absolutely awful. I cannot even think what this would be, except for outrageous spam with obscenities in it, or flagrantly and repeatedly violating clearly listed rules after multiple warnings. I can see banning repeat offenders for a month or some longer period of time, but I would hope that the bar for a true permanent ban would be very, very, very high. Currently, the rules are vague and many people have never even had a mentor in this game, and are not on the forum, so I wonder how much people grasp (earlier, someone wasn’t even familiar with the term “IOU.”).

 

It would help if the rules would have to be clicked on— “I agree” so that everyone definitely sees them before proceeding to the Trading Hub for the first time. It would also be helpful if there was a link to all of those rules very specifically laid out in great detail on the forum so that anyone from the Trading Hub could peruse all of the rules on the forum. So, the rules would appear in three places: 1. The first time someone enters the Trading Hub; 2. Each time before a trade is created; and 3. A link from the area before a trade is created to an area on the forum where all of the rules are laid out in great detail. Perhaps a statement such as, “If you do not understand these Trading Hub rules, please join the forum and ask a moderator to explain them to you.” 

 

None of this would be necessary if people had not been permanently banned from the Trading Hub in the past for there being no clear rules available. 

 

What I would rather see, MUCH rather see than all of this, is less strict rules and no permanent banning (except in cases of absolute last resort.) Make the rules simple, and spell them out clearly in bullet points: No IOUs, no trades meant for one specific person, no trades asking about a lost egg in the AP, no spam. (But people may not understand about an individual egg unless that is spelled out in detail in the more lengthy version of the rules on the forum.)

 

But even I do not understand what is meant by a link to a third-party website. What exactly are we talking about here? What links to a third-party website would there be? I am serious. Isn’t everyone only linking to dragon cave links? Either a link to a group (dragon groups) which is part of DC and is not third-party, or a link to the forum or at least mentioning the forum (in a general sense, not targeting a specific person), which again is not a third-party website. All of this game occurs on one website, and none of the website is third-party. It is all dragcave.net. So I have no idea how a trade could even be conducted unless it was on Dragon Cave. Once upon a time there was a third-party website that did have trading, but that is no more. That is the only thing I can think of that would be referenced, except that it doesn’t exist in the present state of the game, so I am not sure at all what third-party websites have to do with anything. Am I missing something here? Because if we are calling parts of dragcave.net “third party,” then I am utterly confused.

Edited by missy_

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

18 minutes ago, missy_ said:

 

But even I do not understand what is meant by a link to a third-party website. What exactly are we talking about here? What links to a third-party website would there be? I am serious. Isn’t everyone only linking to dragon cave links? Either a link to a group (dragon groups) which is part of DC and is not third-party, or a link to the forum or at least mentioning the forum (in a general sense, not targeting a specific person), which again is not a third-party website. All of this game occurs on one website, and none of the website is third-party. It is all dragcave.net. So I have no idea how a trade could even be conducted unless it was on Dragon Cave. Once upon a time there was a third-party website that did have trading, but that is no more. That is the only thing I can think of that would be referenced, except that it doesn’t exist in the present state of the game, so I am not sure at all what third-party websites have to do with anything. Am I missing something here? Because if we are calling parts of dragcave.net “third party,” then I am utterly confused.

 

The no links to third-party websites means just that, a link to any website that is not affiliated with dragcave.net in any way. The trade itself no matter what would be conducted on DC through teleports, because that's functionally the only feasible way to do it, what the purpose of this rule (and is indeed the case for many other places that forbid links to third-party websites) is to prevent people from posting links where the content of what lies in said link cannot be verified and also lessen people/bots trying to spam/advertise something. Yes, I'm aware that can be circumvented by clever naming of dragons within a linked group, all I'm saying is if you see a "no links" rule somewhere this is usually the reason for it. There's plenty of reasons that someone would want to post links in a trade, usually just to expand upon what they're after/offering. As it stands, teleports right now will prevent you from posting any sort of link at all, which is why you see people type stuff like "group/####" in their trades instead of posting links proper (though the harsh character limit definitely plays a role as well).

Edited by Commander Wymsy

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Commander Wymsy said:

 

The no links to third-party websites means just that, a link to any website that is not affiliated with dragcave.net in any way. The trade itself no matter what would be conducted on DC through teleports, because that's functionally the only feasible way to do it, what the purpose of this rule (and is indeed the case for many other places that forbid links to third-party websites) is to prevent people from posting links where the content of what lies in said link cannot be verified and also lessen people/bots trying to spam/advertise something. Yes, I'm aware that can be circumvented by clever naming of dragons within a linked group, all I'm saying is if you see a "no links" rule somewhere this is usually the reason for it. There's plenty of reasons that someone would want to post links in a trade, usually just to expand upon what they're after/offering. As it stands, teleports right now will prevent you from posting any sort of link at all, which is why you see people type stuff like "group/####" in their trades instead of posting links proper (though the harsh character limit definitely plays a role as well).


Yes, I certainly understand the point about third-party websites with regard to spamming or advertising, especially by bots. But in the past, “third-party websites“ has been conflated to mean the forum. And that is just confusing as heck. The DC forum is not a third-party website.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, missy_ said:


Yes, I certainly understand the point about third-party websites with regard to spamming or advertising, especially by bots. But in the past, “third-party websites“ has been conflated to mean the forum. And that is just confusing as heck. The DC forum is not a third-party website.

Oh, I guess I was slightly confused by your wording then. As I understand (and well, the fact I'm even using the word "understand" here speaks volumes.), saying stuff like "PM me on forum" is fine, though I've not personally asked a mod about linking or referencing to a specific forum post. But I have known people who asked a mod if mentioning they can be PMmed on the forum is okay, and they said it was. Though given how unclear the rules are, I wouldn't be surprised if there's confusion and conflict regarding this between different mods, as it wouldn't be the first time there's been miscommunication like that (this is not an attack, it is just an observation of a few incidents over the years.). That said, linking to a forum post in a trade sounds horrifically difficult given the strict character limit but I agree, clarifying that the forums are not considered third party and sticking to that is a very good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Commander Wymsy said:

Oh, I guess I was slightly confused by your wording then. As I understand (and well, the fact I'm even using the word "understand" here speaks volumes.), saying stuff like "PM me on forum" is fine, though I've not personally asked a mod about linking or referencing to a specific forum post. But I have known people who asked a mod if mentioning they can be PMmed on the forum is okay, and they said it was. Though given how unclear the rules are, I wouldn't be surprised if there's confusion and conflict regarding this between different mods, as it wouldn't be the first time there's been miscommunication like that (this is not an attack, it is just an observation of a few incidents over the years.). That said, linking to a forum post in a trade sounds horrifically difficult given the strict character limit but I agree, clarifying that the forums are not considered third party and sticking to that is a very good idea.

Yes, didn’t mean to imply actual “linking” as, agreed, that would be difficult/impossible as it currently stands, just that even mentioning one has a post on the forum has been known to cause issues (and again,why? I ask this question rhetorically—since the trading forum has more room to specify wants as previously mentioned).  And this gives me another idea—there could be a button to link our forum trading post to the Trading Hub) (Just brainstorming here)—like so—on the Trading Hub, next to our trade, two buttons: One linking to our forum PM message box (which we can enable or not, as we choose), the second linking to a related forum trading post, if we choose. So: “Forum Post?” “YES” (with a link to the forum post, but it could be represented by a button, which would be neater on the page and less busy) and “Contact on Forum?” “YES” (again with a button that serves as a link to our contact link on the forum). We can fill those in ourselves with the links, and graphic buttons would be concise so as not to interfere with the Trading Hub layout.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

IIRC we were told at one point that  no links of any kind were allowed, that even a link to a group was not OK,  we should only give its number. @TJ09 - was that what was said ?

 

ETA I was wrong: it says:

So at the moment there is no way to link a group:

Quote

it's possible that explicit ways of actually linking to e.g. a group may be introduced in the future.

 

But within the thread that post is in, it specifies that forum links are not OK; it does count as off site (which it is, really) and that would make such links a form of messaging.

 

I doubt if TJ's job would allow a link to a message box of any kind, but I'm not sure. "PM on forum" is OK, though.

 

ETA there's a post in that thread that says it isn't. So... Oops; I don't know any more...

 

But there isn't actually enough space in the box for a link really, so.... (and I would not want a bigger box; I would just like separate have/want boxes. I don't want to see long "posts" about trades in the hub - those are more for the forum threads, I think.

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

From following all these different threads and reading all the mod's posts about it, what I understand is that saying something like 'PM on forum' is okay *if* you also put a 'want' in the box. So you can put '2g Prize or PM on forum', but you can't *just* say 'PM on forum', since that doesn't follow the 'tell people what you are looking for' rule. 

(Although now that I'm actually searching for confirmation I can't find anything...I could've sworn some mod confirmed that somewhere...)

Share this post


Link to post

Is it any wonder people are confused? It seems there is conflicting information all over the place. And hunting through multiple forum threads for what is acceptable is exhausting! Which I think does argue for a nice concise list right out where everyone can see it.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

From following all these different threads and reading all the mod's posts about it, what I understand is that saying something like 'PM on forum' is okay *if* you also put a 'want' in the box. So you can put '2g Prize or PM on forum', but you can't *just* say 'PM on forum', since that doesn't follow the 'tell people what you are looking for' rule. 

(Although now that I'm actually searching for confirmation I can't find anything...I could've sworn some mod confirmed that somewhere...)

 

I also would really like confirmation about this. I often include a note to PM me for example to combine trades, since most of the time I have multiple ones up at once. This would probably be okay as long as there's also something listed as a want, but if mentioning being PMed is not allowed at all then that seems important to know.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.