Abe Hassan (burr86) wrote in lj_userdoc,
Abe Hassan
burr86
lj_userdoc

accounts

And again!

FAQ104: Moved validation into the summary, removed half the links in the "what can I do now??" to pare 'em down to the bare minimum sort of thing.

FAQ245: Removed the "you must be logged in" (the page errors and tells you to log in, our users aren't THAT stupid). Removed the "this has no relation to invite codes" bit. Removed the "you can customize the message or c/p the link; LJ doesn't store this info" bit, because it's on the page itself.

FAQ11: Removed the lecture in the summary, pared it down to "you get an email, click the link, or have another email sent". Toned down the "omg!functionality" paragraph. Removed the "you'll get an email when you change your email" para, since it's in the summary now. Reorganized the "troubleshooting" section.

FAQ19: Split it into summary/answer, of "change email" vs. "email mgmt".

FAQ71: removed the redundant "look at our requirements" sentence.

FAQ127: Removed the "caps and hyphens are lowercase/underscore" (we said a-z0-9_, so that statement is overkill). Removed the "here's all the reserved usernames" -- ex_, lj_, s_, ext_ -- to keep the FAQ simple. Removed "once a username has been registered, you can't register a new one with that username" explanation; overkill. Removed the "explanation" for inactive accounts -- they've never convinced me. *g* -- protected entries would show up on the updated time, prolonged access without internet doesn't fly for an account that's five years inactive, and using it only for comments/communities is generally ... you can tell. *g*

FAQ18: Reorganized information, nothing lost.

FAQ16: simplified the summary.

FAQ17: cleaned up the "validated or unvalidated" redundancy. (current email means current email, period). Nuked the "comment anonymously on your account" suggestion; there's no point in offering two ways to do exactly the same thing. Simplified the "omg!update!password" paragraph to one sentence. Removed the "omg!validate!" warnings everywhere, since they're in the FAQs they link to (and if they don't read those FAQs, they'll get error messages in the action they're trying to do).

FAQ167: ... has this FAQ been used at all in the past year? In any case, cleaned up the text a bit (eg, whereami.bml never listed problems with clusters)
Tags: cat-accounts, faq104, faq11, faq127, faq16, faq167, faq17, faq18, faq19, faq245, faq71, status-resolved
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 12 comments
https://lj-userdoc.livejournal.com/602995.html
lj-userdoc.livejournal.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-45
371377
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:RWVXMCO2CSXMVRMEMV2CXNZ5FXGZ4FHR
<urn:uuid:816ad1e2-7ada-4a75-841c-8ee5db1ee2b5>
2020-10-30T17:20:52Z
13.88.179.33
text/html
sha1:QGRUQ2FCWMZE63PSP3UBCH5LTDCZR62Z
<urn:uuid:9b733a28-3603-4166-b0ce-2b8fdc16487a>
https://lj-userdoc.livejournal.com/602995.html
response
<urn:uuid:bad6ed30-d6bc-4980-a49d-61a676fa7514>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-45
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-127.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/