From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44626 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2015 14:57:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 44615 invoked by uid 89); 15 Mar 2015 14:57:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: ainaz.pair.com Received: from ainaz.pair.com (HELO ainaz.pair.com) (209.68.2.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:57:44 +0000 Received: from ip-77-24-68-117.web.vodafone.de (ip-77-24-68-117.web.vodafone.de [77.24.68.117]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77D593F47E; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:57:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: overseers@gcc.gnu.org, David Malcolm Subject: Re: RFE: Improvements to wording of bugzilla account-creation pages? In-Reply-To: <1422889899.29180.44.camel@surprise> Message-ID: References: <1422889899.29180.44.camel@surprise> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2015-q1/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 I do agree with this. Who can make these changes? Gerald On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, David Malcolm wrote: > I believe we need some wording improvements relating to the disablement > of bugzilla account creation. > > If I go to: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/createaccount.cgi > I see a page reading: > > > BEGIN QUOTE: > To create a GCC Bugzilla account, all you need to do is to enter a > legitimate email address. You will receive an email at this address to > confirm the creation of your account. You will not be able to log in > until you receive the email. If it doesn't arrive within a reasonable > amount of time, you may contact the maintainer of this GCC Bugzilla > installation at overseers@gcc.gnu.org. > > [snip] > END QUOTE > > > Sadly, due to spamming, most of the above is either untrue or > misleading. Can we change the wording on that page to something like: > > BEGIN SUGGESTION > Sadly, due to heavy spamming, there is no automated way to create a GCC > Bugzilla account. > > To create a GCC Bugzilla account, you can email overseers@gcc.gnu.org. > Alternatively, if you use IRC, you can ask on #gcc on the OFTC network > (irc.oftc.net). > > [snip] > > END SUGGESTION > > > > If users *do* fill in the form, they get to a page which reads: > > BEGIN QUOTE: > User account creation has been restricted. Contact your > administrator or the maintainer (overseers@gcc.gnu.org) for information > about creating an account. Please press Back and try again. > END QUOTE > > (this was attempted using my personal gmail.com account, rather than my > regular redhat.com account) > > This wording could also be improved. > > "User account creation" doesn't make it clear that it's a site-wide > thing, the "user" in question could well be interpreted as relating to > the individual user (and I hear anecdotal reports on IRC that people are > trying this and thinking "oh, is it because I'm on gmail" or whatnot). > > Also the "Please press Back and try again." is plain wrong; if someone > retries, it isn't going to make it work, as I understand things. > > I'm guessing that the red text is from a BZ parameter, in which case it > may be easier to modify. > > Suggested rewording of red text: > "Sadly, due to spamming, we've had to disable automated account > creation. > > To create a GCC Bugzilla account, you can email overseers@gcc.gnu.org. > Alternatively, if you use IRC, you can ask on #gcc on the OFTC network > (irc.oftc.net)." > > (we could have s/creation/creation for that domain/ maybe, if that's the > case?). > > (Alternatively, a captcha, or somesuch, but clearly that's a lot of > extra work. > > Or make the original field on the createaccount.cgi hidden to humans, > and add a human-visible field with a different key, so the spammers are > POSTing to the wrong field, so that their queries are easily > distinguishable from benign activity - we reject POSTs where the > invisible field is nonblank - though, again, that's nontrivial coding > (and I don't know Perl)). > > Hope this is constructive, but I think we're making it unreasonably > difficult to file bug reports, and thus likely missing out on the more > casual contributions to GCC etc. > > Dave