i’ll try again
In the meantime, yes, i’m sorry for the way i’ve said some of the things i said.
I still feel that censorship is the wrong way, but i’ll probably get it in time.
i’ll keep it partially brief, 'cause we’re here to be constructive about coda development, right?
Okey, i think that a doc should not be forcefully public in order to obtain coda credit for the user that decide to use it
I can think about a lot of cases in which this is not the expected behaviour, i’ll list them below
- the old referreal link didnt require this kind of public involvement
- if i create great doc, so good that make people create a coda account thank to what i’ve made, coda decided to give me 10$ credit, this is the concept i have of the referreal credit, or in case they use my doc coping it etc, in no place i’ve read that this doc have to be made public in order to get credit for it.
- In the documentation is not clear this passage (doc have to be public), i would say it’s not wrote anywhere, i would also say that the information wrote in the documentation and in this post says the contrary, “place the button and you’re good to go” or “that’s it! your hard work is making doc, not losing time in referring people!”
- docs that contain sensitives data (i’m pretty sure a big portion of them) off course WILL NOT be made public, this is a serious issue off course, if i would want to get referreal credit from those users i would have to make a public published doc that act as a middle man, and it just sound non efficient
Based on those reasons, and i’m sure others that others will encounter, i propose to correct the behaviour of the referreal “Sign up for coda” button, proposing that it should work, and so referring people, and so creating coda credit also if the doc is NOT published
Now, emotive part, because here we’re human, used to talk to machine if we’re here, but still human.
i am angry 'cause i’ve lost at least 400$ in coda credit, that is more or less 80% of the total credit i should have by now.
Would you be a little angry if someone take 400$ that they have promised to give you after a certain process that you followed like a good cristian? (hey! this is not a joke about christianity or religions! it’s a way of saying that we use in north italy, it mean something like “doing what you’re supposed to do”, i’ve grown in a catholic family and here is kinda everywhere, so i’m part of it, if someone get offended by this, please, consider how different are people worldwide)
I’ve “happily” changed the way i told users to sign up 3 times in the last year and half, at the price of creating confusion in users, always following coda support “best practices”, that once were the link, now is the button, etc etc
But still i have gotten 3/4 referreal out of 35
This makes me sad off course, 'cause i’ve been a good cristian (read upper note)
It makes me even more sad that after i explain the situation, i get a new way of doing things, that is not documented at all (from my extensive research), that does not present itself as a good solution but more as a strange buggy behaviour (this is my point of view on the topic, here to discuss it in case, but it seems to me that it is aligned with what was the concept of the sign up button described in the first post of this topic)
And, anyway, i’ve still lost money (for me coda credit rappresent real money, i do not get paid form my work on coda but i still have to pay monthly for my account, so this story is equiparable to not being paid, or to lost money)
I had trouble accepting that this is due to my fault, and off course seen the fact that this “features” is hardly documented (see upper precisation on this point) i would have liked a proposition to have my credit back, at least seen the fact that i could have “misinterpreted” the fact that a doc have to be public to get credit from it.
I think i’ve expressed my point respectfully
I do not feel treated in the same way (perception…ah those humans that are not so 0 or 1…) ← (this is a joke about the fact that we, as different biological machines, see and perceive the world differently) ← (biological machines is not intended to hurt nobody view of the world and life in his complexity, it’s just a definition that i liked in my biology courses to represent humans in their multiple and fascinating facets)
I also didnt want to offend anyone in particular, this was not at all the concept of my previous post.
Off course i was angry 'cause i’ve lost money after trying so hard to get them, but i was criticizing concepts, not people
(criticizing and freedom of speech i’ve heard somewhere someone called them “backbone of democracy”) ← (by no means this pose democratic societies as better than others with others way of doing things, that maybe we do not understand)
Life is already hard for all of us, my goal is not to make it harder to anyone.
But i get that i can be more constructive, and make it easier for people to cooperate to get a dream product at the end
I’ve joked about someone (no one in particular) “was being distracted” while thinking that feature (no, i didnt use those words, mine were more creative) BUT in total honesty this is how i colloquially say to someone i care about that something doesnt work, and i’m kinda sure many of us use similar weird figures of speech to express abstract concepts, with the final goal to make a laugh about the situation. I have now understood that this is NOT appreciated in any way here, and i will not use them here again.
I would also like to say that i’ve been here in this community for a long time, sharing jokes, trying to make problem and situation funnier, and to create a good and constructive environment, like many others, and i was wrongly expecting to be accepted, possibly my concept of acceptable is to be revised (cultural differences can be a part of it to)
With this said, i apologize to all the users that have felt offended by my previous post, i have now understood that i have to behave differently