Allow reporters to add additional details

[glamrock]

Instead of having an edit button (which would allow deletion of reports), there could be an "add more information" option when someone visits the report page again. This could help protect against flooding by limiting the amount of reports a single reporter can file on any given reportee.

[fabacab]

Hmm. See also #54. Labeling as "question" because I'd like to hear some thoughts about this.

[unquietpirate]

I like this. I particularly like the idea of creating a way for a user to collate all their comments about one person within a single report, rather than having to file an additional report every time they think of a new detail they want to add to an existing narrative.

I don't necessarily think this means we should categorically prevent users from filing multiple reports on the same person. For example, I might want to file two different reports about two distinct incidents, but then update one of those reports later with more information about that particular incident.

However, having the option to expand an existing report would presumably lower the need for multiple-report filing, so it would seem reasonable to me to put a cap on the total number of distinct reports a user can file against a given individual in order to address #54. Say...5?

Thoughts?

[fabacab]

With respect to implementation, I don't think it should be that hard; it could theoretically be accomplished without too much code change; later additions could simply have a "parent_id" column that references the earlier report. Looking up the parent report would then also have to pull in any child reports that reference it.

With respect to design and user workflow, I'm still not sure how this would add much value beyond filing a new report. If you get more details about a situation, then you could always just re-file the same report and add the new information to the later report, which is how people currently use PAT-FetLife/FAADE. Also, since each report has a permalink, it's possible for a given reporter to reference the previous information by linking to it.

Sure, this would mean there are "two" reports, but why is this a problem?

The reason that question stands is because I am still unconvinced that limiting reports from users is a good idea. I will again cite my work in "Tracking rape culture's social license to operate" to explain why. Unless I hear a convincing argument for why limiting is useful or, conversely, why specific changes to the workflow/user experience with respect to adding additional information is valuable, I am disinclined to implement this.

[unquietpirate]

With respect to implementation, I don't think it should be that hard; it could theoretically be accomplished without too much code change; later additions could simply have a "parent_id" column that references the earlier report.

Cool. :)

With respect to design and user workflow, I'm still not sure how this would add much value beyond filing a new report. If you get more details about a situation, then you could always just re-file the same report and add the new information to the later report, which is how people currently use PAT-FetLife/FAADE.

As a reader, I would likely find it valuable to be able to return to a report(s) that I've already determined was submitted by a source I trust and read new updates added to that report, rather than having to wade through every report filed about a specific person in order to check for new information (especially if some of those reports are likely to be griefer reports filed by people defending my abuser.)

The existence of this functionality in no way curtails the behavior of submitters. They can still do whatever they want, submit multiple reports, re-submit the same report with more information added, or whatever makes the most sense to them. It just gives them more options.

Conversely, as a submitter, I might be less inclined to add new information if doing so requires filing an entire new report rather than simply adding a few lines to my existing report. The reasons for this are psychological: People who are most likely to be the victims of sexual violence also tend to be people who have been socialized to "not take up space." Many have been told that speaking out about their abuse is just "fishing for attention." (Speaking not hypothetically but as an actual survivor of abuse here, publishing the same report over and over, or publishing whole new reports just to add a few details, would definitely feel to me like a "space-taking", "attention-seeking" behavior that I wasn't entitled to -- I would be disinclined to do it and would probably just leave my original report as-is, feel frustrated about my inability to amend it, and beat myself up for not doing it perfectly the first time.)

Also, since each report has a permalink, it's possible for a given reporter to reference the previous information by linking to it.

It won't occur to lay users to do this. (And FWIW, viewing the app from inside the Facebook Canvas, I've never been able to find the permalink for a given report. The URL bar always just says: https://apps.facebook.com/predator-alert-tool/)

Sure, this would mean there are "two" reports, but why is this a problem?

It's not a problem. Isn't this issue classified as "enhancement"? It's a feature that might make the user experience more pleasant or conducive for certain users, but the lack of its current existence isn't a bug and it's not necessary for MVP. * confused *

The reason that question stands is because I am still unconvinced that limiting reports from users is a good idea. I will again cite my work in "Tracking rape culture's social license to operate" to explain why. Unless I hear a convincing argument for why limiting is useful or, conversely, why specific changes to the workflow/user experience with respect to adding additional information is valuable, I am disinclined to implement this.

Okay, now I'm really confused. I have no attachment whatsoever to throttling user submissions. I only brought that up in reference to #54 which suggests that we need a mechanism for throttling submissions; but I didn't post that issue. Where is this coming from? :/

[fabacab]

You convinced me. I'll assign this to myself and slate this enhancement for the next milestone.

I'm not sure what you're confused about. I was trying to understand why this would be helpful, and to do that I needed to set a bar that had to be reached to justify the effort.

Also, "throttling" has nothing to do limiting the quantity of reports that can be submitted, but rather limiting the rate at which reports can be submitted.

[unquietpirate]

Also, "throttling" has nothing to do limiting the quantity of reports that can be submitted, but rather limiting the rate at which reports can be submitted.

Ahhh! Okay. That was my point of confusion. I didn't understand the vocabulary that was being used. Thanks for the clarification. :)