Feature #6992
Put it more clearly that most bug reports without an email address are useless
100%
Description
Our Report an error page reads:
Giving us an email address allows us to contact you to clarify the problem. But it also provides an opportunity for eavesdroppers, like your email or Internet provider, to confirm that you are using Tails.
The WhisperBack UI reads:
If you don’t mind disclosing some bits of your identity to Tails developers, you can provide an email address to let us ask more details about the bug. Additionally entering a public PGP key enables us to encrypt such future communication.
Anyone who can see this reply will probably infer you are a Tails user. Time to wonder how much you trust your Internet and mailbox providers?
I think it would be good to put it very clearly that most bug reports we receive, that lack an email address, are basically useless.
(And by the way, I would remove the “Time to wonder..” part, that feels a bit too defensive to me.)
Subtasks
Related issues
Related to Tails - |
Resolved | 2014-05-09 | |
Has duplicate Tails - |
Duplicate | 2014-03-06 |
History
#1 Updated by intrigeri about 11 years ago
- Assignee set to sajolida
Assigning to sajolida to get his opinion. Please set another kind of work and status = confirmed if you agree, or reject else.
#2 Updated by sajolida about 11 years ago
- Status changed from New to Confirmed
- Assignee deleted (
sajolida)
I think the sentence in the documentation is less defensive than the one in WhisperBack, so that could be an easy improvement.
I’m leaving this as a “Discuss” task, but for me that could be made a “Code” task assigned to Alan if we agree on this option.
#3 Updated by intrigeri about 11 years ago
> I’m leaving this as a “Discuss” task, but for me that could be made a “Code” task
> assigned to Alan if we agree on this option.
Getting the phrasing right would be better done before sending the ball in Alan’s court.
Do we want exactly the same phrasing as in the doc?
#4 Updated by sajolida about 11 years ago
>> I’m leaving this as a “Discuss” task, but for me that could be made a “Code” task
>> assigned to Alan if we agree on this option.
>
> Getting the phrasing right would be better done before sending the ball in Alan’s court.
> Do we want exactly the same phrasing as in the doc?
Seeing the context, the sentences could be the same on both sides.
Reusing the one currently in the doc would already make it less
defensive. Do you think we should make it more explicit that most
reports without email addresses are useless?
And what about the PGP key option? It’s not mentioned in the doc at the
moment. Shall we add it there?
#5 Updated by intrigeri about 11 years ago
- Description updated
#6 Updated by intrigeri about 11 years ago
sajolida wrote:
> Seeing the context, the sentences could be the same on both sides.
OK.
> Reusing the one currently in the doc would already make it less
> defensive.
This could be a first great step, but it does not fully address the concerns I raised when creating this ticket.
> Do you think we should make it more explicit that most
> reports without email addresses are useless?
Yes, that’s exactly what this ticket is about :)
> And what about the PGP key option? It’s not mentioned in the doc at the
> moment. Shall we add it there?
No idea, and this looks very much off-topic here.
#7 Updated by BitingBird about 11 years ago
https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/bug_reporting/index.en.html#index4h2 mentions GPG option. It’s not very detailed, but it’s there :)
#8 Updated by sajolida about 11 years ago
- Title: Put it more clearly that most bug reports without an email
address are useless
#9 Updated by Anonymous about 11 years ago
yes, this should be mentioned. but i would rephrase a bit. sometimes phrases in the doc are not very clear to me.
“Giving us an email address would allow us to contact you in order to clarify the problem. This is needed for the vast majority of the reports we receive as most reports without any contact information are useless. On the other hand it also provides an opportunity for eavesdroppers, like your email or Internet provider, to confirm that you are using Tails.”
#10 Updated by sajolida about 11 years ago
- related to
Feature #7180: Remove the right pane of WhisperBack added
#11 Updated by sajolida about 11 years ago
- Subject changed from Put it more clearly that most bug reports without an email address are useless? to Put it more clearly that most bug reports without an email address are useless
- Assignee set to alant
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
- Type of work changed from Discuss to Code
Done in the doc with commit 5439823.
Now has to be done in WhisperBack.
#12 Updated by intrigeri about 11 years ago
- Category set to 174
#13 Updated by intrigeri about 11 years ago
Alan, if you don’t think you can do it, say, by mid-August, please de-assign you this ticket so that other contributors know they can do it. Thanks!
#14 Updated by intrigeri about 11 years ago
- has duplicate
Bug #6855: WhisperBack should explain why providing an email address is useful added
#15 Updated by BitingBird about 10 years ago
- Assignee deleted (
alant)
#16 Updated by intrigeri about 10 years ago
- Assignee set to intrigeri
- Target version set to Tails_1.3
#17 Updated by Tails about 10 years ago
- Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
Applied in changeset commit:f98afd380127beeda63b0752a9e364c679393f89.
#18 Updated by intrigeri about 10 years ago
- Assignee deleted (
intrigeri) - QA Check set to Ready for QA
#19 Updated by alant about 10 years ago
- Assignee set to alant
- Feature Branch set to feature/6992-whisperback-email-address
#20 Updated by Tails about 10 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
- % Done changed from 50 to 100
Applied in changeset commit:4c04683da974c0c47da56568a7ebc0043083a355.
#21 Updated by alant about 10 years ago
- Assignee deleted (
alant) - QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass
#22 Updated by BitingBird about 10 years ago
- Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved
#23 Updated by sajolida about 10 years ago
Here are some stats across 1.2 and 1.3 releases:
1.2
reply | 63 | 40% |
total | 157 |
1.3
reply | 94 | 43% |
total | 217 |