I feel like both are similar ways of saying the same thing.
me2
Thanks for the suggestion @fsflover. However less sometimes is more ;). Let’s keep it short and pay attention to eventual feedback from users about confusion with the description.
1 Like
@Sven, what do you think about the other points? Namely:
- inclusion examples
- exclusion criteria
- exclusion examples
@Sven, what do you think about the other points? Namely:
- inclusion examples
- exclusion criteria
- exclusion examples
I’m OK with the ones you listed. Let’s do this! 
… also please point me to what I need to learn to mod. Will I get
notifications by email if I have to review something… etc?
1 Like
Great news! The new forum category “All around Qubes” is finally open. See it here. As discussed before it is only available to trust level 2 users to make sure participants are already interested Qubes community members.
Thanks to everyone who contributed in this thread with ideas and @sven for originally bringing up the issue and taking the role as moderator of this category.
4 Likes
Thank @deeplow and @Sven for all the coordination and the works which made this new category a reality. 
2 Likes
@deeplow @sven Should we perhaps open the recently closed topics, https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/chrome-os-telemetry/2415/ and https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/1vyrain-should-i-install-core-boot-or-skulls/2636/ and move them into the new category?
1 Like
I was thinking of that. The thing is sometimes the users who created the discussion haven’t been active enough to access that category. So I don’t what what’s best
They will get the access when (if) time comes. Meanwhile, other people could already contribute.
1 Like
Moved them there. Let me know if you find other ones that have been closed.
1 Like
This “(experimental)” in the name of the new category is quite distracting. Woudn’t it be better to put such note into the description instead?
Moved it to the description now. Hopefully it is less distracting but still passes the impression that we’re seeing where it goes.
I’ve also added “Discussions” right before the description. So it now reads (changes as bold):
All around Qubes
[experimental] Discussions relevant but not specific to Qubes (security, privacy, software freedom, system administration, …)
1 Like
There is a usability issue when All around Qubes posts are linked to from the public. Users who can access it (i.e. trust level 2 or above) will be just fine. But the rest of the users will see the following:
Which looks like a broken link and provides no explanation.
There are two solutions:
- avoid linking to those other (more private threads)
- when mentioning those discussions add a link to this thread so people know what it’s about.
- detailed 404s
For detailed 404s, it is briefly discussed here:
That could be a bit less confusing as users would at least see:
The main problem is that discourse has a that as a binary setting. Either for all 404s or for none. And this has information disclosure risks, particularly for private messages. Not sure how to measure those risks, but I don’t thing such a site-wide option should be adopted.
If a more granular approach were to be adopted (i.e. only show it on categories), I think it would be a reasonable approach.
So for the time being, I think we’re stuck with:
- avoid linking to those other (more private threads)
- when mentioning those discussions add a link to this thread so people know what it’s about.
Oops! That page doesn’t exist or is private.
(emphasis mine)
Don’t you think it’s already clear that non-existing page is not the only possibility? I remember hitting such problem on other sites and never was confused. Of course it would be much better to explain somewhere that we have a hidden category, but otherwise I don’t see a big problem here.
One possibility would be to turn text or is private above into a link to the short announcement of the new category (perhaps in the News). Or simply mention the hidden category somewhere in the forum rules (do we have them?) or in the certification process (how to access it?).
The thing is that there is no straightforward way to change the text in that page without changing all other 404s.
Yes, I understand. Nevertheless, the text would still say that the page may not exist first. At least to me that would not be very confusing, it just would emphasize that there’s more than one possibility.
Do we email users need to do anything special to subscribe to this new category, or
will it just happen™?
This ^
You should be receiving them (just checked the logs). Look for example for the “Hardware brands which you trust” and let me know if you found it.
Magic
1 Like
Supposedly this will no longer be an issue in the next discourse update: