Didn’t have time to reply to this.
If that’s the case, the wording here should definitely be made much clearer because right now it’s really easy to misunderstand.
We’re always looking for ways we can improve how we communicate this type of information to avoid confusion. 
What changes would you suggest?
4 Likes
How about something like:
This will NOT change the setting for every member but it will change the setting for XX of YY existing members.
An admin who sees that message might decide that’s OK, or decide to come up with Plan B.
1 Like
Right now the messages says something like “XX users will have this setting changed” after confirming that we want the change to be retroactive.
That, in my opinion, is misleading.
What should be clarified is how the change actually affect the users and why those XX users are affected.
Based on the comment here, something like this would be more effective:
“XX Users will be affected because they didn’t explicitly select a frequency in their email notifications. Please be aware that users that explicitly selected a frequency will not have their setting changed.”
I must reiterate that having a way to allow only “important” emails would be greatly appreciated and with important email I would suggest something like:
- Account status changes (ban, suspension, promotion to moderation, etc)
- Password recovery / Email change
Or otherwise, anything that is not topic/reply email notification really.
In big communities that are not coming from a company, the cost of a premium plan for email providers is going to be a burden and email should be reserved for actual important communications.
4 Likes
That may be a little too verbose and specific to that one setting to be able to make that change smoothly. 
It may be worth opening a ux topic to discuss how we can make those ‘apply default historically’ style messages more clear that they only apply to the default values.
I think this is a valid feature request. I’ve had a quick search for previous and found this one Send only system emails when disable email setting is on, though I’m afraid it received a pretty coolish reception at the time (there may be others though as that one is a few years old). Personally, I see the merit in such an option.
6 Likes
The main issue is so many even active admin don’t know/understand historically in this context.
So… messages are clear enough if and admin really knows what is doing. Perhaps some educational popup what we are serving to users would be better (really — we need some teaching program to admins) but: the easiest and cheapest solution is just changing text. It is not the most elegant way 
As I understand the ”helper engine” is there and all (that can be a lot, though) what is needed is content and new target, admins.
1 Like
can you point out some documentation that clarify? As much as I don’t intend to become a professional discourse admin, I’ve to admin a fairly populated community and any info is welcome 
1 Like
This and other similar topics?
My point is it looks like everyone doesn’t understand history in the meaning: when an admin changes defaults and let them change on user’s side too, it will happend only if an user hasn’t ever change that setting.
So in easy english history in this context means an admin shall not override user’s choises
I read this forum more than I should and never knew this. I’d always assumed that changing a setting retrospectively did it for all users. I must have assumed the number was the number of users whose setting was different (those who chose it and those for whom it had been the default).
1 Like
I allow myself to bump this topic, as someone else was confused by this phrasing: