0

I'm trying to describe feedback from a software system. I believe if the application's emails seems like they are from a person rather than an automated message it will get a better response from the user. When talking and writing about this I need a more formal word for this idea.

In an example sentence

The [word] of the feedback makes a difference in user's response.

I originally thought locus. When I read definitions of it though, I don't think it's the right thing, but close.

Note: this isn't spam mail, it's analytics reporting to users identifying issues in their comprehension of topics to promote help-seeking remediation. I don't need information about how spam bots are dumb and ineffective.

Improve this question
5
  • 4
    The origin, or originator of the message?
    – oerkelens
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 19:00
  • 1
    I like origin too or perhaps source
    – Jim
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 19:03
  • It's very hard for even native speakers to make a message sound like it comes from a person instead of a spambot, especially if it doesn't. Attempts to do that, especially attempts by non-native speakers, usually result in worse rather than better responses.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 19:07
  • 1
    It's a bit unclear, original poster, whether you're asking to describe a) the content of email message bodies that are generated by machines but meant to be perceived as written and sent by a person -- or -- b) the contents of the message header in which a blob of text data contains information specific to the email protocol, information such as sender, subject, date, reply-to, spam-score, and on and on. which of these do you mean? i suspect the former but everyone else seems to be answering the latter.
    – miercoledi
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 8:50
  • 'Provenance' has some of the connotations you're looking for.
    – user888379
    Commented Sep 29, 2017 at 19:23

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

Maybe you are talking about the perceived sender of the email or source of feedback. The suggested source conveyed by the system, whether it be man or machine, is certainly important to how the feedback is perceived.

Improve this answer
2
  • I agree, maybe, that is the best way to put it. Does this sound right? "The perceived source of feedback and its impact on users' behaviors."
    – groteworld
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 19:32
  • @grotr Sounds good!
    – nxx
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 22:54
3

You're probably looking for "ostensible origin", "apparent origin", "perceived origin". But you need to sort out your language, and possibly your thinking, in relation to the traffic. A spam message (if that's what it is) is not "feedback". Feedback is what comes to the sender from the receiver.

Improve this answer
1
  • Not to go offtopic, but, "ostensible $x" -- with x as something like "origin" -- is really good here. The word "ostensible" seems to be difficult for most people to place/utilize effectively, but not for Terpsichore, who's nailed it. While most instances of a phrase/form-of-words including "ostensibly" or "ostensible" as its operative word, a subtle negative, sleazy implication can be inferred; however, this doesn't seem to belong directly to the word "ostensible" itself, which has little connotation charge. Note: I think this question's creator means to ask something else. A moment..
    – miercoledi
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 8:45
0

Some words that convey the meaning you describe:

Apparent source (or sender, author, originator, etc.)

Assumed source

Suggested source

It seems also, though, as if you might be wanting to convey the idea that an individual, human, involved or concerned source has a positive effect on the reception of feedback, as opposed to communication from a non-human, machine-generated, automatic, or disinterested source.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .