Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: ergophobe
I run a job board in which employers can search a database of resumes. Some of those resumes are great, and warrant a "save" by the employer. At the same time, to keep the db clean, I allow employers to flag candidates. +3 flags and I manually decide weather to delete the candidate.
The save link and flag link are in different locations on the page. Save anchor text is: " save candidate". Flag anchor text is: "flag this candidate".
An employer emailed me today saying that she accidentally flagged a candidate when she meant to save them. After a quick discussion, I found out she thought flagging meant "make special note of this candidate" for later (even though I do have an explanation of what flagging is).
Upon more thought, I realized that I'm the one that created this usability problem!
Different applications use flags in different ways. For example, in forums and blogs, flagging is a negative connotation. But in task management programs (the prevalent MS Outlook), flagging means "this is special"... a positive connotation.
Bottom line: my link text is ambiguous.
How would you deal with the problem?
1) Confirmation box: I really don't want to bring up a confirmation box, because I think that is a bandaid as opposed to a solution.
2) Change location: consolidate the "save" and "flag" links to the same place so it causes the user to differentiate between the two. This seems weak as well, because it doesn't get around the ambiguity of the link text.
3) Change the name of the link text. Possible action words that would might work "________ candidate":
The problem with these are either a) they remain ambiguous, or b) they don't do what they say they'll do. For instance, if I wrote "delete candidate", then I bet many people wouldn't click it because they would be afraid that I would actually delete the candidate, when i'd really just be flagging them.
Perhaps I have to skip the verb-lead anchor text that I have been taught to use (and completely agree with), and just go with something linked like this, "Candidate should not be in database."
Ohhhh... I think I just solved it! Sometimes all it takes is typing to oneself! :o)
"Report this candidate."
Suggestions still welcome!
+3 flags and I manually decide weather to delete the candidate.
I think you're on the right track with "report this candidate." Isn't that in effect what they are doing?
P'raps, also, I should be ashamed to admit - "flagging" has always been confusing to me too. I'm a visual person, I visualize a flag stuck on something, which can be good or bad, depending on the color of the flag and the context. If it's a well-witcher, 'dem's GOOD flags - a logger, not so good, for the tree!
"like" and "don't like"
Or go graphical: thumb up (keeper) & thumb down (loser)?
Good idea, but doesn't fit with my action-verb-then-noun linking mantra. I read about this somewhere. If I dig up the link I'll post it. Additionally if someone doesn't like a candidate, I don't want them to request it be removed. Just the ones that are garbage. That is why this is a bit of a tough issue.
Isn't that in effect what they are doing?
Yup... sure is. That word (report) hit me like a ton of bricks at the end of my post. It is perfectly descriptive of what's going on. Well. Not perfect. But close. And a quick link to a "what is reporting" solves the question portion.
Funny what you said, rocknbil, about floggin candidates. That would be perfect. Re: flags on trees: I've seen the ribbon-o-death quite a few times... sad.
Craigslist [craigslist.org] has a set of flags - at the top of each post there's a box that says "Please flag with care." It then gives a list of several flags to add to a post: overpost, spam, miscatigorized, etc.