• Alejandro Colon

  • 5 avril 2021 14:07

  Could Zendesk update the following articles as they can be slightly misleading?
  https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203662156-Zendesk-Support-placeholders-reference
  https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115015758148

  In that article and the linked article, it seems that the ability to access {{comment}} in {{ticket.comments}}, {{ticket.public_comments}}, {{ticket.latest_comment}}, and {{ticket.latest_public_comment}} would also apply to {{ticket.comments_formatted}} {{ticket.public_comments_formatted}} {{ticket.latest_comment_formatted}} {{ticket.latest_public_comment_formatted}} {{ticket.latest_comment_rich}} {{ticket.latest_public_comment_rich}}

  This is further confused by the ability to access the rich value using {{comment.value_rich}} but there is no way to access the formatted version. 

  This also causes issues as there is no way to adjust {{ticket.comments_formatted}} like you would any other placeholder.

  This is an example pulled directly from https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115015758148

  {% for comment in ticket.comments limit:1 offset:0 %}

  Adjusting this example to not show the first comment like so

  {% for comment in ticket.comments limit:1 offset:1 %}

  This works for {{ticket.comments}} but not for {{ticket.comments_formatted}} or {{ticket.comments_rich}} as you might expect. Not only that it is not clear that you cannot use the built-in liquid filters to say reverse {{ticket.comments_formatted}} but you can for {{ticket.comments}} and that also could be extended to get the {{comment.value_rich}} while not being able to get the formatted version.

• Alejandro Colon

  • 5 avril 2021 14:15

  Would it not make more sense to simply mark the articles/posts that are going to be removed (in the spring cleaning process)? That way if a user sees that the article is marked for deletion then they can comment on this post. Otherwise, it does not make much sense to comment here with all of the articles/posts I use often to make sure they are not removed. 

  Another suggestion on top of that would be to move the article/post to a section that is designated for deletion. This would allow the same things as mentioned above while also at the same time removing them from whatever section they were in originally. This would mean that the spring cleaning would be accomplished and would allow for more time than a single week for users to denote which articles/posts they use often.

  Just a thought. I can explain in more detail if you would like.

• Nicole Saunders

  • 5 avril 2021 14:36

  Zendesk Community Manager

  Hi Alejandro - 

  We will pass your feedback about articles on to the knowledge management team, but this thread is meant to be a discussion specific to the community. 
  
  I appreciate your suggestions on our process, however, the most efficient way for us to do it is to collect feedback first. 

• Alejandro Colon

  • 5 avril 2021 15:01

  Understood. My mistake.

  Would it be possible that when a community post is deleted and a user tries to access it, that we are given an option to request that it be brought back. I know that in the past, there have been links to posts that were deleted and caused confusion (at the very least it has happened to me). I think it would be beneficial that in addition to going back to the post where the link was shared and responding there that the link no longer works, that we could also simply request access on the 404 page that comes up.

• Nicole Saunders

  • 13 avril 2021 18:24

  Zendesk Community Manager

  Hi Alejandro - 

  There's no functionality along those lines in Gather. The best option is to create a new post to ask about something that's been removed. 
  
  

  We are reworking our content maintenance processes, and will be sure to be transparent about what that will look like once we have it defined, so that it's really clear when and why things get archived. Thanks for the feedback! 

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.