Open dnnr opened 3 years ago
This is an issue with how we are naming the ticks aggregation category. We consider that
are all similar from a database management. If we look at the generalisation, a users logbook is like a specialised list and favorites is also like a specialised list, but on areas.
Fundamental to the design of streams we have four aggregation slots (one is reserved and the three you see). So all stream logging events have to fit into one of the three you see.
We are not going to move favorites to a different aggregation category, but we could rename the aggregation category on the UI. I just don't know what to rename it to.
Understood, thanks. I don't have a good suggestion at hand either, to be honest.
Maybe a better way to go is to consider abolishing the filtering mechanism altogether? Depending on the problems it was supposed to solved in the first place (I guess making the streams less noisy), maybe there are alternatives approaches available? As a random example, look at how GitHub deals with long activity histories in PRs: Entries that are considered less relevant (due to age or category) get folded up to keep things tighter without completely hiding the content's existence.
What happened? When viewing a crag's activity stream and unchecking the boxes for "updates" and "discussions", the stream contains events like "[person] added [crag] to their favorites."
Screenshot (made here):
What you expected: