A small merit-sending UI tweak

[EL MOHA]

I didn't thought it like that. I have only sent +- 60 merit my whole life. Yes, for a big merit sender like you, it would only create more problems. We better stick to approach A,B,C then. 

It’s not necessary I have also had same idea before but it will be like another task for big merit spenders like merit sources because every merit done will require that confirmation message and it will slow the process down. Also the problem with this merit sending issue is mainly due to mistakes like the sender not paying much attention to what he is doing and even with the confirmation message they will still just click yes without actually cross checking it.

I believe it would be necessary to create and pin a thread in the beginners and help section about sending merits to assist newbies in using the merit function

It’s not necessary because they already have some threads that are pined and they contain merit discussion already. Example is the newbies read before posting thread on the beginner and Help bord. Funny enough newbies don’t read them and they end up asking questions about it

So my own other suggestion, PowerGlove is to make add a patch that after sending the merit we should be taken back to the post again just like how it works when posting is done.

[1715543486]

1715543486

[1715543486]

1715543486

[1715543486]

1715543486

[shahzadafzal]

I thought EpochTalk was meant to be a completely original platform, not just a fork of some existing open-source solution. So, these features should have been part of its core design from the start, right?

You are correct; EpochTalk is indeed a new and "next-generation forum software," not a fork of any existing solution. It's designed to provide a more modern and scalable platform for forum-style discussions. However, it's important to note that it builds upon the functionalities of the original BitcoinTalk forum. So while it is new, it still serves as an evolution from BitcoinTalk, incorporating all the functionalities of BitcoinTalk and adding new features.

I'm not entirely sure, but I've had a look at the source code of EpochTalk, and it appears to be designed for general forum use, not just for BitcoinTalk. I did notice that it has a "trust system," but I couldn't find anything related to a merit system. It's possible that the merit system has been renamed or is available as an optional add-on, rather than being included as a default feature in EpochTalk

I mean possibilities are endless after all it's a "Next generation forum software"!!!

[KingsDen]

I also prefer Approach C. Just a placeholder text, similar to how it is now, but more error-proof.

Option C is the most preferred option to me. By using option C, there isn't any number pre-inserted for you , so the possibilities of errors will reduce. But, I'll suggest that the placeholder text shouldn't be "0" . A placeholder is always an indicator of what is actually expected to be entered. So, there is no how "0" can be given as merits, that's why it doesn't fit as a placeholder. We can chose a number from 1 to 9 to be the placeholder.

I have seen people make such mistakes of sending merits way above what they are supposed to send. This could solve the problem to a certain degree when implemented.

[dkbit98]

One disadvantage of approach A is that it leaves the user wondering what they're meant to type in (that's obviously not an issue for people that have sent merit before, but I could see brand new users getting confused without any cues to help them).

I think approach A is the best option for this UI tweak, but approach C is also not bad.
They are both simple, and maybe we can add few more lines of text explaining better how to merit a post, that should mostly be used for newly created accounts.

I also recommend adding an up/down or plus/minus button so people on mobile wouldn't need to manually type in the numbers. Not much of a big deal, but it's a fairly easy update that could make things a lot less of a hassle.

This could work, but than we again need to have default value, and minimum/maximum, or someone could go pressing minus and send someone 999 merits (for example).

[Peanutswar]

Among the choices, I'd prefer Approach C, place holder is ideal because this can serve as an indicator that the text field is for numbers only, I do not think so if its a good idea if there a button will prompt only for the large merit send as another layer verification if the user really want to commit sending large merit.
Good to know that the merit view is fixed already once you reload again it makes another merit sent.

[LoyceV]

After sending out 10 merits for example at a time and coming back to merit that user on a later date, you have a maximum of 40 to send, but the place holder will still display 1-50.

Good point. Let's go overboard and change the amount depending on how many sMerits the user sent to that post already, how many were sent in the past 30 days, and how many sMerit he has left. So it can be anywhere from 1-50 to 0-0.

[Cricktor]

Good point. Let's go overboard ...

While I like when systems look and act smart, this would be really going overboard and the added complexity isn't worth it in my opinion (I'm quite sure you're not serious with your suggestion).

If I had to vote for an option, I'm fine with option C and I'd prefer to have the cursor already in the entry box so that I'd only have to type the number of merit points to send.

[philipma1957]

Good point. Let's go overboard ...

While I like when systems look and act smart, this would be really going overboard and the added complexity isn't worth it in my opinion (I'm quite sure you're not serious with your suggestion).

If I had to vote for an option, I'm fine with option C and I'd prefer to have the cursor already in the entry box so that I'd only have to type the number of merit points to send.

Yep . I am laying in my bed watching my Giants lose to the Raiders as I type this.

I Gave you a merit because I likely spend an hour a day typing on the iPad mini while lying in bed. It is the most likely time To make the 10 or 20 error. So C is certainly best for me.

[Samlucky O]

I think Approach A will be better, because it will leave the field completely empty to avoid any error. You can manually insert a particular number of your choice. Or the approach of @mk4 which you will add or reduce the number of merits.

[DYING_S0UL]

I think Approach A will be better, because it will leave the field completely empty to avoid any error. You can manually insert a particular number of your choice. Or the approach of @mk4 which you will add or reduce the number of merits.

It's appropriate for low ranks users who only shares a small amount of merits. But those with high rank or those who are merit source might think this as inappropriate as they distribute hundreds or thousands (I don't know the numbers) of merits each day. So sending out merits, selecting how much to send can be seen as a headache to them. Even a loss of one second is unacceptable for some members. Again I'm not any merit source or high ranked user, so I don't know if I'm right or wrong. Only they can give the correct insight of the situation.

I don't want to add even a second to each one. That would have been 4 hours already!

[promise444c5]

I think the initial value could just be settled to "value=1" the place holder will always dissappear  after an input so if there's no input we can just set it to a text to display the user needs an input

Why is the "type=text"? it could be number with a max value and minimum value "type=number max=.... min=....."
Since it will be authenticated before storage in BE a more secure way is used already.

<input type="number " max=".." min=".."/>


Text area keyboard mode and increase and decrease mode


With this input is set to null initially  and the arrow will help to add and decrease to the max and min value with, users can also make use of keyboard  to type numbers from min value  to max value if users don't want the increase and decrease button.
Then,we could have a modal prompt before submittion for confirmation.

[EarnOnVictor]

I have sent 10 and 20 credits maybe three times. I would love to see this fix.

I've thought of it in my imagination but never knew the mistake was real. I pray to have this kind of luck one day...lol.

It's good that the OP is pointing this out and is very thoughtful of him at the same time for the betterment of the forum and to guide against it in the future. I hope his proposal will be granted.

No one is above mistakes but I don't think I can make this one since I'm always careful and attentive when sending merits. The mistake I can only make is to send my merit twice due to the way the page goes back to how it was at times after sending the first merit.

[Gladitorcomeback]

The problem of sending more merits happens to those who generally send merit in two figure. I didn't face any problem so far when sending Merit but some members facing issue so I think Approach C is best suitable to solve the problem and if initial value remain 1 instead of zero , it will be more helpful

It's appropriate for low ranks users who only shares a small amount of merits. But those with high rank or those who are merit source might think this as inappropriate as they distribute hundreds or thousands (I don't know the numbers) of merits each day. So sending out merits, selecting how much to send can be seen as a headache to them. Even a loss of one second is unacceptable for some members. Again I'm not any merit source or high ranked user, so I don't know if I'm right or wrong. Only they can give the correct insight of the situation.

I am active here for almost year and visited so many threads and observed that sharing 100  or 50 merit is very rare. A high number of merits given to the some old threads. Some Useful Thread Iike Talkimg and threads in technical Bitcoin discussion  also got so many merit. Normally Merit source send 10-30 merit for good post/transaltion while people like me has limit of 5 maximum per post.

[DYING_S0UL]

I am active here for almost year and visited so many threads and observed that sharing 100  or 50 merit is very rare. A high number of merits given to the some old threads. Some Useful Thread Iike Talkimg and threads in technical Bitcoin discussion  also got so many merit. Normally Merit source send 10-30 merit for good post/transaltion while people like me has limit of 5 maximum per post.

How will the button actually work? Suppose I want to send 5 merits. Do I have to press (+) five times then? Won't that take much of my time? As LoyceV said, "He wouldn't want to waste a single second".

In my opinion, by default, it should be 1. And even if a user sent smerits rushed, only 1 merit would be sent. After that, he or she can make changes to how much they want to send anyone. Previously, I suggested there should be a confirmation message. But now I see it will only create more problems.

[Gladitorcomeback]

l
How will the button actually work? Suppose I want to send 5 merits. Do I have to press (+) five times then? Won't that take much of my time? As LoyceV said, "He wouldn't want to waste a single second".

In my opinion, by default, it should be 1. And even if a user sent smerits rushed, only 1 merit would be sent. After that, he or she can make changes to how much they want to send anyone. Previously, I suggested there should be a confirmation message. But now I see it will only create more problems.

Indeed I am not in the favor of button and I think the default manual putting number is better then all. If you want to send 5 merit, just input 5 which is much easier than tapping + button five times. I don't think LoyceV will think, This default Merit system will waste his time as he is old member and If he thought that, he would have expressed it already.

[joker_josue]

Another great idea @PowerGlove

Approach C

If I get a vote, I vote for this one. But the place holder shouldn't be "0", Trawda's post made me realize "1-50" is better.

I also agree with the Approach C. It is informative and avoids errors, without having to resort to extra scripts.

But, just rectifying the suggested code: 

Code:

<input type="text" size="6" name="merits" placeholder="1-50">

[PowerGlove]

Having had some time to think about this one, it's occurred to me that approaches B and C can actually be (harmoniously) combined (that is, approach C + the onclick="this.select();" JavaScript from approach B will lead to an approach that works just like approach C does when JavaScript isn't available, but that will still be able to catch a wider range of mistakes when JavaScript is enabled).

I like Loyce's refinement of Trawda's idea: "1-50" makes more sense as placeholder text than "0" does.

So, combining the above thoughts, and following the format in the OP, we have:

Approach D

This approach would replace the pre-populated "0" with the placeholder text "1-50" (which acts as a hint, and is only visible while the field is empty). This approach also adds a bit of JavaScript that "selects" the value whenever the field is clicked, so that whatever you type in will replace whatever was already there (meaning that, in addition to 0-based mistakes like 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 being mitigated, 1-based mistakes, 2-based mistakes, etc. are also mitigated).

That would look like this:



And this (after entering a value, and then clicking on the field):



The HTML would change to: <input type="text" size="6" name="merits" placeholder="1-50" onclick="this.select();"> (that is, value="0" would change to placeholder="1-50", and onclick="this.select();" would be added).

(I did read and appreciate all of the posts/suggestions in this thread, and while a lot of them make sense, some of them are likely to create new problems; they're worth revisiting at another point, I think. Getting bogged down in an overhaul that tries to fix too many problems at once will likely result in something that doesn't get merged. For now, I think a strict improvement that isn't too complicated has the best shot at getting accepted, IMHO.)

P.S. I also like Cricktor's suggestion to have the field automatically take input focus, so that all you have to do is type the number of merits and then hit "Send". But, there are some accessibility notes on MDN about how that might interact poorly with screen readers, and I'm not sure how people on mobile devices would feel about the on-screen-keyboard automatically appearing on that page (maybe they'd prefer it?). Anyway, if theymos thinks it's a good idea, then the HTML would change to: <input type="text" size="6" name="merits" placeholder="1-50" onclick="this.select();" autofocus> (that is, same as approach D above, but with autofocus added).

[joker_josue]

Approach D

This approach would replace the pre-populated "0" with the placeholder text "1-50" (which acts as a hint, and is only visible while the field is empty). This approach also adds a bit of JavaScript that "selects" the value whenever the field is clicked, so that whatever you type in will replace whatever was already there (meaning that, in addition to 0-based mistakes like 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 being mitigated, 1-based mistakes, 2-based mistakes, etc. are also mitigated).

In this sense, I choose approach D.

This idea, that when you click, the numbers are automatically selected, would also be a good solution.

Another excellent job PowerGlove.

[rat03gopoh]

I like approach B with the default value=1 instead of 0. I think it won't confuse newbies because they'll definitely realize it's a numeric field and 1 is the average value most users send. This saves the user a few seconds without touching the keyboard at all. This is a fair convenience imo.

"1-50" placeholder I think is unnecessary because theymos has by default applied sendable limits. After all, it would be a very rare case where a newbie had more than 50 smerits. And I'd exclude merit sources from needing approach C or D because they certainly know its limitations without placeholder text.

[suchmoon]

I don't like "1-50" as a placeholder. If you know nothing about merits, that doesn't really help you. 1 minus 50 so... -49 ??

I'm not a fan of placeholders in general, they tend to be styled barely visible and disappear when you need them.

I'd say leave it empty. Add an explanation above/below if needed. That page has enough space, even on a phone screen. Ensure the field is focused automatically so that the user can just type in the number and hit enter ("autofocus" attribute IIRC).