Co:?; Enq:?; Loc:?; Q:?; ETy:?; iVis:?;

A contact: [CoName]

Contact e-mail: [CoEmail]

What I prefer to call them:

What I prefer them to call me:

Date they registered with RegenCHOICE: [CoRegDate]

Contact was established on [ContactDate]

(messages if break requested) [MyBreakNote] [CoBreakNote]

Enquiries that fit and their locations:

[EnqName] of type [ETypeLabel]

• My enquiry location; their distance; maybe their location
• (constructed from [EnqLID]; [LocLat]; [LocLong]; [CoELat]; [CoELong]; but how should these be displayed?)

[EnqName] of type [ETypeLabel]

• My enquiry location; their distance; maybe their location

[CoDetails]

(not yet decided how best to handle this)

No longer wanting to be in contact? Move to break contact

if so I have reported abuse by this contact

The following information is shared between me and them:

my requirements with their answers

(notes rows only appear if filled)

Q:	[QTitle]
I want:	[MyEQWants]
My note:	[MyEQWNote]
A:	[CoAns]
Their note:	[CoANote]

Q:	[QTitle]
I want:	[MyEQWants]
My note:	[MyEQWNote]
A?:	[CoAns]
Their note:	[CoANote]

Q:	[QTitle]
I want:	[MyEQWants]
My note:	[MyEQWNote]
A:	[CoAns]
Their note:	[CoANote]

my preferences with their answers

Q:	[QTitle]
I prefer:	[MyEQWants]
My note:	[MyEQWNote]
A:	[CoAns]
Their note:	[CoANote]

their requirements with my short answers

Q:	[QTitle]
They want:	[CoEQWants]
Their note:	[CoEQWNote]
A:	[MyAns]
My note:	[MyANote]

their preferences with my short answers

Q:	[QTitle]
They prefer:	[CoEQWants]
Their note:	[CoEQWNote]
A:	[MyAns]
My note:	[MyANote]

if EnqID look at other correspondents for enquiry [EnqName]

look at other contacts across all enquiries

Diagnostics: ?

Change here would be one prompt to break contact. Wherever there has been correspondence, the Enq ID for that is stored. This page displays all the relevant information from all enquiries that have fitted.

Abuse could be, e.g., using one enquiry type as proxy for a different one (e.g. recruitment by subterfuge)

Information required and sources

Key: {CoNo};

• {CoName}
• {CoEmail}
• {CoNick}
• {CoRegDate}
• {ContactDate}
• {CoStatus}
• {CoMyStatus}
• {MyName}
• {MyBreakNote}
• {CoBreakNote}
• for each of the {CoEIDs}
• {EnqName}
• {ETypeLabel} ← {ETypeID}
• some position display, including distance for this enquiry
• ← {EnqLID}; {LocLat}; {LocLong}; {CoELat}; {CoELong};
• For each relevant QID asked by user:
• {QTitle}
• {MyEQWants}
• {MyEQWNote}
• {CoAns}
• {CoANote}
• For each relevant QID asked by contact:
• {QTitle}
• {CoEQWants}
• {CoEQWNote}
• {MyAns}
• {MyANote}
• {CoDetails}
• {MyDetails}

---

Pre-processing

If I have asked a question (requirement or preference) and they have answered it, as part of an enquiry that at one time has fitted, either establishing contact or while contact has been established, then that question will appear on the user's question list. Vice versa, if the contact has asked a question which the user has answered, it will appear on the other list. There seems little point in making fine distinctions between required or preferred, between present and past, etc. etc.

• recheck and process correspondence with this contact for all enquiries
• assemble answers by this contact to questions in all enquiries
• assemble answers by user to contact questions in all enquiries
• which contact details were used in case of contact

---

What the user is doing

Examining over all the relevant information about a contact in order to decide how to initiate or continue communication with them; or whether to break contact.

---

Post-processing

---

Information output

• any change of CoStatus
• QID if looking at any answer

---

Issues

We must not allow someone to establish contact, look at other's details, and then block immediately denying the details to the other. Blocking should work only up to establishing contact. Facility to break contact addresses this.

One interesting thought is, what happens if this is a multi-way match? Can one of the matching conditions be whether it is a whole match or a partial group? When two people have agreed on a multi-way, do they somehow become one unit?

What to do if contact has been established, but then match is lost or contact is blocked?

TO CHECK Ideally, when contact is established, the data set on which the correspondence was based is sent to both contacts, for reference. Changes to any answer, or any additional Qs & As that maintain the correspondence should also be sent.

Contacts and correspondences

The principle I've been thinking about here is that when someone is contacted, they should not be able then simply to disappear. Hence, the desire to keep their correspondence enquiry up. However, if they were to correspond on two enquiries, what would happen? Do we keep both up, or do we keep just the first one on the basis of which contact was established? And if the latter, how is this recorded?

Contact details

I've been wavering on this one. On the one hand, e-mail is the most straightforward, and most used for verification. On the other hand, many young people use e-mail rarely, preferring various other channels like FB, twitter, WhatsApp, etc. And then there's Skype. An ideal solution would have people rank their usage of different channels, and put people in touch through their mutually highest shared channel.

---

Contact status

See correspondent info page