Welcome to SmarterWX Collaborate Ideas, an interactive forum where SmarterWX users can suggest, discuss, and vote on product enhancement ideas. Feedback is a big part of how we work to improve SmarterWX. Your suggestions help us decide what improvements we make and which new features to investigate further.
Unverified Users are not receiving emails of collaboration opportunities or emails sent by another users from within SmarterWx. This means that the user is not aware of the opportunity. If we take this rule away (no emails to unverifieds) then project managers will be encouraged to use this system each time an opportunity arises which will only increase its use and provide the benefits we know it can deliver.
This option is now available by request. Organisations with Unverified Users can make a request via Esri Australia Support to have their users' verification status manually updated to 'Verified'. This enables the flow of collaboration opportunity emails to previously unverified project owners.
Hi Stuart, I have requested input from our legal team on whether a chance of communication policy is acceptable, i.e. are we okay to communicate with unverified users provided we provide opt out links in any emails we send. I hope this will be accepted as in this case we do have an existing relationship with the users, because the subscriber organisation have entered into a contract for the service. I'll let you know the outcome of this and also what we plan to do to fix the issue.
Solution idea submitted by Stuart McDonald:
Currently unverified users are not receiving collaboration emails. This means collaborations are being lost. A member organization should be able to control whether or not user verification is required for their users to receive emails. As these are work email addresses they are owned by the member organization and are not deemed spam where an organization has signed up to a service.
Justin - have just added new idea, but this has been submitted previously although not articulated in the same way. The other ide provide the user organization administrator the ability to make the decision on behalf of their organsiation
Hi Stuart, we support users setting their email preferences via the user profile. The default for opportunity notifications is a "Daily Digest", but this can also be set to "Weekly Digest" or "No Emails". There is no "Monthly Digest" option at this time. If a user does not want to receive emails as the project owner, then perhaps the project owner needs to be updated. Happy to discuss this if you feel there are gaps in the current product. I will reach out to you directly to continue this exchange - thanks.
Hi Justin,
The management of emails can be via the user profile frequency. I would like them to still receive them with default of weekly. The only way to change is to verify the account and set to monthly. We should have Fortnightly and Monthly available as options. For me this is highest priority. The whole intent of the product is notification of opportunities. If they switch them off then it doesn't work. The only way to opt out is for them to request emails are sent to the organisation's administrator or nominate another user to be the contact, however this is an organisation issue not a system issue. If you are the contact for the organisation, then you must receive emails for the project. If you would like discussion by users, then a 1 hr session with SOCC memeber can be arranged via Nabil Issa.
Hi Stuart, the current behaviour is that only verified users (those who have completed the registration step) receive emails from the platform. When the system was developed we adopted the position that we wouldn't email unverified users. We are open to reviewing this decision based on your feedback. There are a few details we need to work through including reviewing the flow from an opportunity email for unverified users, and providing options for unverified users to opt out of receiving emails. We have added this change to our development backlog to be included as part of a future release. Thanks again for sharing the feedback.