Lack of interest Must have phrases (alerts)

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.

imthebest

Well-known member
Hello,

I have found two scenarios where I believe there is a need for new phrases. Here we go:

1. A posts on B's profile
2. B likes the post of A on his own profile
3. B comments the post of A on his own profile

Then A receives the following alerts:

Current: B liked your post on B's profile. <-- REDUNDANCY! (x_liked_your_post_on_ys_profile)
Expected: B liked your post on his profile
Current: B commented your post on B's profile. <-- REDUNDANCY! (x_commented_on_your_post_on_ys_profile)
Expected: B commented your post on his profile

Please don't forget to like my suggestion if you support it!
 
Upvote 0
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
It's like that because of other users that may join in.

For example, an alert for user A: User C commented on your post on user B's profile.
 
Expected: B liked your post on his profile

Expected: B commented your post on his profile
Firstly, the latter should be "B commented on your post on his profile" ;)

Both of your suggestions insinuate that B is a male. B may not be, they could be female. Both of these would require new phasing to be added (as the only gender phrasing currently is "Male" and "Female" as shown on the Personal Details page) so you'd need "B commented on your post on his profile" and "B commented on your post on her profile".

Of course, the user may not have declared their gender (so will have Unspecified on the Personal Details page). This would require additional phrasing too. But what would you put in this instance? "B commented on your post on its profile"? Not very nice, really!

On top of all of that, there would need to be additional coding in the background to determine each time which of the three phrases to use depending on the specified (or not) gender of the person. Frankly this just overcomplicates things unnecessarily.

So I'd say that what we have already is the simplest and best solution. :)
 
Top Bottom