Lack of interest Exclude specific content from activity summary emails

This suggestion has been closed automatically because it did not receive enough votes over an extended period of time. If you wish to see this, please search for an open suggestion and, if you don't find any, post a new one.

Kirby

Well-known member
In some cases, it might be necessary to exclude certain content (threads, etc.) from activity summary emails that would otherwise match the specified criteria.

It would be nice to have a generic, extendable system in place that would allow privileged users (eg. moderators or admins with appropriate permissions) to exclude certain content from activity summary emails.
 
Upvote 6
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
This is one really nice thing about the Threadloom newsletter add-on. It allows you to exclude a post/thread from showing up in the email newsletter.

For Activity Summary, it would likely have to be a flag on the thread itself since there is no previewing interface for it like Threadloom. Which means it would live on the front end as a Moderating feature, probably under the thread tools menu - "exclude from Activity Summary". That would be a nice addition.
 
You don't need the Threadloom newsletter add-on or any other add-on to do that.

AdminCP >> Communication >> Activity Summary >> {Activity Summary section, e.g., Latest Threads} >> Forum Limit

Under forum limit, highlight the forums you want to INCLUDE from the dropdown; if not selected, a forum/node won't be included.
 
You don't need the Threadloom newsletter add-on or any other add-on to do that.

AdminCP >> Communication >> Activity Summary >> {Activity Summary section, e.g., Latest Threads} >> Forum Limit

Under forum limit, highlight the forums you want to INCLUDE from the dropdown; if not selected, a forum/node won't be included.
That would exclude the entire node - what if you want to exclude just a particular thread without excluding all other threads in the node, like you can do in Threadloom? Pretty sure that's what the OP was suggesting - more granular control.
 
Top Bottom