Tech Forum

Would it be possible to add some sort of special feedback feature on the new site for clerk and technology stuff that allows someone to recommend a change or addition, then that recommendation is forwarded to a small team (say three or four) of Church employees who vote on the change and assign someone to update the page? This way the content is both somewhat community based and still controlled by the Church. Also, the special feedback feature would be separate from the regular feedback feature for the rest of lds.org (because recommendations to the regular feature can take a long time to get through and can possibly be lost).

You read our minds. We are actually working on an effort which will somewhat address this request.

We are now working on providing a "beta" version of our new materials to be released. The idea would be that a few units would be able to see the new features prior to them rolling out to everyone. There would be functionality there to allow a user to submit feedback directly to our development group.

Normally, we do receive the feedback sent through the standard LDS.org feedback tool (Allegiance), but it takes a while to get there. Also, because were not actively working on released features (unless they are broken), requested enhancements often are delayed.

We hope the beta idea will allow the community to provide input and see their requests heard and addressed in a better way. We expect to have this functionality in place for our end of summer releases.

Thanks for taking the time to let us know your concerns and ideas!

You mentioned "a few units would be able to see the new features prior to them rolling out to everyone." How will that list of units be determined? If it's on a volunteer basis, then I and many others here on LDSTech would certainly volunteer to participate. But you might be overwhelmed with volunteers if you took that approach, so it might be good to clarify how the beta units will be selected.

aebrown wrote: it might be good to clarify how the beta units will be selected.

Good call.

What we have in mind is very similar to the current MLS beta test procedure. Basically, we have a standard set of 2 or 3 stakes that would initially test the new functionality. After a short period of time (a week we think) it would expand to a larger set of 10-20. Then perhaps one more group of between 50-100 stakes a week or so after. Lastly, we hope to have a feature that we could activate on demand which would allow any user not currently participating to self-subscribe to the beta.

I'd love to field any requests to participate in the beta. 100 stakes is a lot and we could expand it 500 if needed. I think we can support it.

PartridgeRM wrote:I'd love to field any requests to participate in the beta. 100 stakes is a lot and we could expand it 500 if needed. I think we can support it.

So how would you like people to make these requests? Should they send you a PM? Or reply to this thread? I'm sure you can look up what stake we're in based on our LDS Account username, but would you like any information besides the username?

It is probably best to reply to this thread for now. I'm subscribed to it so I'll get notified right away.

Please provide your ward/branch name and your stake/district name, and your name if you'd like to participate. I will then add you to our beta list and contact your stake president to confirm he is comfortable participating in the beta.

PartridgeRM wrote:It is probably best to reply to this thread for now. I'm subscribed to it so I'll get notified right away.

Please provide your ward/branch name and your stake/district name, and your name if you'd like to participate. I will then add you to our beta list and contact your stake president to confirm he is comfortable participating in the beta.

That might not be the best method. There are many people on this forum who would prefer not to give their real names on a public forum, and also don't want to disclose exactly where they live.

If you do need the members' actual names, ward name, and stake name, I think it would be better to ask for private messages -- you'll get notified by email of any PMs you receive, so I would think it would be equally convenient for you, while still preserving confidentiality for forum participants.

After discussing this with our group here, we've decided we will build a specific beta sign up page into Clerk Resources from which users can request participation. I'll post it's location when we have it ready.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge about forum best practices with me--it's good to learn!

I'm thinking a better method may be to allow stake presidents to sign up. Otherwise, I think you're going to get a click from every forum user and end up contacting a bunch of Stake Presidents who have no idea what you're taking about or just why they'd want to sign up. Leave it to the forum users to sell the idea to the SP.

I believe that's the way the MLS beta and the early meetinghouse Internet programs started.

PartridgeRM wrote:You read our minds. We are actually working on an effort which will somewhat address this request.

We are now working on providing a "beta" version of our new materials to be released. The idea would be that a few units would be able to see the new features prior to them rolling out to everyone. There would be functionality there to allow a user to submit feedback directly to our development group.

Normally, we do receive the feedback sent through the standard LDS.org feedback tool (Allegiance), but it takes a while to get there. Also, because were not actively working on released features (unless they are broken), requested enhancements often are delayed.

We hope the beta idea will allow the community to provide input and see their requests heard and addressed in a better way. We expect to have this functionality in place for our end of summer releases.

Thanks for taking the time to let us know your concerns and ideas!

Although this sounds great, based on the forum where this was posted, I think the OP was talking about the new Meetinghouse Technology site that is going to replace the information on the wiki. I think he was looking for some way to let the community continue to help make sure it stays up to date and useful.

I wouldn't think you would need a full beta test process for documentation updates.