As it is now, the following information can be read from iGiver summary (at least by non-administrators/moderators): Comment (acting as a link to the thread), positive/negative, to and from, etc.
I would like to propose adding an additional piece of information to them.
What I would like to be able to to see (without having to click the link to the GA thread, read the title, and scroll down to see which invite the invitee applied for), straight away, the entity, which the iGiver was given/received for.
This also implies that when a user is to leave an iGiver he or she has to specify the entity, which the iGiver was left for, and perhaps this in itself would serve to formalize the process somewhat.
I can imagine, that when the iGiver/iTrader was first implanted (Note: I’m a relatively new user, it might have been there all along), it did bring much order to the procedure, in contrary to a forum where invites and bonus are transferred between users without any form of recording, and I believe that implantation of this suggestion would raise the level of order in an equal amount.
Even though things are fine now as they are, it believe this suggestion would make life at TI even better, and while it might seem unnecessary, I believe that after it’s implantation it would be an very much appreciated feature.
What would it look like: (Note: I’m not an artist, but I’m sure you can imagine what it would look like, if it was in a similar style to what’s already there)
When leaving an iGiver:
There would be a drop-down menu where you would select which entity the iGiver is for.
When browsing the iGiver summary of a given user:
(It would also good to be able to click the “Entity”-button and then have all the iGiver’s sorted by entity)
Another question would be: How are new entities to be added to the database:
At point of implementation, the programmer adds entities to the database
Further on there are two possibilities as I see it:
As a user is about the leave an iGiver, he or she scrolls down the drop-down menu, but is unable to find the entity which he or she is looking for, then at the bottom there is another button which allows the user to add a new entitiy.
Or; requests for addition of new entities must be filled by any potential giver of a new entity at the point of creation of the GA thread, then confirmed by the admin which adds it to the database.
The main advantage of this, as I see it, is that far much more information would be gained from the iGiver summary table, than what is now the case. Spotting those receiving duplicate invites would be far much easier (and faster). And that the whole process of giving away and receiving entities (=invites, bonuses, etc.) would gain an new dimension of order.
Further down the road, when the basic function has been implemented, or at the very beginning if that’s easier, I have a suggestion for a further add-on feature:
When leaving the iGiver, the system would prompt the user (With a reference to a suitable post where the rules are stated..), if the user is about to leave an iGiver whose entity matches an iGiver which the user has left in the past.
If the user chooses to still leave the iGiver → He would then have left two iGivers for an identical entity, and report would be sent to an admin-subforum (similar to the way of “reported-posts”). Efficiently eliminating the work of having to detect, and deal with users whom request duplicate invites (And have an obvious preventive effect!).
Of course, this would bring about some problems when it comes to entities which users can receive (rightfully) more than one of (such as bonuses, etc.), but I believe this problem can be dealt with without too much hassle: either only have the prompt (→ report) for entities whose name includes “invite”, or actually have the prompt (→ report) for all entities, but have it so that the admins are able to exclude those reports dealing with invites.
Obviously, the system cannot have an retrograde effect, but if it was to be implemented, I'm sure that we would, after some time, see some major benefits from the addition.
I realize this suggestion may have some glitches, even great gaps, but I’m confident those can be discussed and worked out.
I’m not a programmer, and I have no idea whether or not a function like this would be easy to incorporate, or even if it’s possible, but I just came up with it today and I thought that it would be useful, and really help bring TI to a new level.









20Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks












