General > General Technical Chat

How to tag someone in a post?

<< < (16/27) > >>

tautech:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on February 27, 2024, 08:28:36 am ---I wonder if it's possible to implement this, with the facility for users to opt out, so they can prevent others tagging them?

--- End quote ---
Late to the party.....

Mentions/tagging works okay as it is and just checked mine to find a half dozen old ones.
IMO it needs enhancement so that a refresh of any forum page should show any new Mention flag, maybe on your Profile tab.
Expanding your Profile will then show the flag against the Mentions tab.

^^^
All similar to how we are notified of PM's.

tggzzz:

--- Quote from: thm_w on February 28, 2024, 11:38:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 28, 2024, 09:45:57 pm ---Or would you prefer a Thanks also generated an active notification and an easier to find list of your thanked posts?  I'm sure it would caress your ego, but I don't think it would help with respect to the quality of discussions, which seems more important than ego stroking to Dave, the owner, here.

--- End quote ---

I use a forum with a Thank notification feature, and its a complete non-issue. Its just a number at the top you can click on if you desire to (similar to what soldar showed).
It encourages useful/quality posts if anything, because it shows you that people found what you posted of some value.

Not a fan of how Youtube implements the functionality though (where it shows up along side replies, it should be able to be easily ignored).

--- End quote ---

Just so. Implementation and the all-important culture of how such mechanisms are used are very site dependent.

The thanks mechanism on this website has been devalued by one (or more?) poster that thanks every response in his many many threads - even responses that call him an idiot! (Does that poster know about mentions?  >:D )

Occasionally someone posts a suggestion about one other mechanism they have seen on other sites and think is "neat". Fortunately the mods/owner are well aware of the significant problems with "anti-thanks" a.k.a. "downvoting".

Given the unobtrousive nature of the current implementation of mentions on this site, my main objections are that I want clear indication of what points are being discussed, not the individuals.

I four mentions against my name:

* One of them says "I understand what you mean, but...", without it being clear which post(s?) they are/aren't agreeing with.
* Another asks a comprehensible self-contained question (fine) about a post that directly and unambiguously answers contains the answer (unimpressive). If they had quoted my post that would have been obvious - and the post probably wouldn't have been made!
* Another says "is this what you mean?" without stating which of the four points I had made they are questioning!
* The last is in this thread, and can be discountedHence experience clearly shows than mentions - as used so far on this site - are "suboptimal" (i.e. lousy), and that quoted points are better.

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on February 28, 2024, 10:23:51 pm ---Well yeah, you get some stats on your account, if that floats your boat, there you have it, you can check it any time, sure.

--- End quote ---
No, the issue is the active notification: that on every page, next to the Profile button at the top of the page, you will get a count of notifications you have not checked yet.  You get nothing like that for Thanks.


--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on February 28, 2024, 10:23:51 pm ---The only meaningful argument, that I've taken in at least, is that it's a (currently unreliable) substitute for PMing someone.  This is a correct take, I would say.
--- End quote ---
Many people do not seem to understand that it is not easy to ignore things for those who have a strong conscientious personality trait.  For example, the number of unread emails, PMs, or mentions, will bug them.  For those without, or with only a weak or moderate conscientious personality trait, it is very easy to ignore them, and they just do not see any problem with presenting such counts to all users.  This is why it is important to understand that just because it does not bother you, does not mean it should not bother anyone.

I have a strong conscientious personality trait.  Unread emails, PMs, text messages, and missed phone calls bug me.  On the other hand, I'm very, very good at finding and spotting bugs in code, and understanding the underlying mechanisms in complex systems.  I do not remember anything by rote, I integrate what I understand, because I feel I have to work at it that way.  It all ties together, you see: the trait has both positives and negatives.  The trait is neither useful nor not-useful, neither good nor bad, as it varies from situation to situation.

(That said, I have considered disabling the active pop-up (via client-side modification using a browser extension) for unread PMs, because the count next to the My Messages button is notification enough.  Because I can see how useful it is for those without a strong conscientious trait, I will not suggest removing it.)


--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on February 28, 2024, 10:23:51 pm ---It serves the social function of being an in-public announcement of such; a beacon as it were.
--- End quote ---
Yes, like say a card in the mail inviting you somewhere.


--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on February 28, 2024, 10:23:51 pm ---Which, doesn't really mean anything
--- End quote ---
You obviously do not have the conscientious trait.  One with a conscientious trait would be compelled to respond, or actively (meaning think about and then decide to) ignore the invite.  It is definitely not "not anything".

A better argument is to compare the three facilities: private messages, thanking, and mentions.
Private messages can be disabled.  The count and list of thanked posts are available if one is interested, but not listed on every page.
As currently implemented, the number of mentions one has not yet checked are listed on every page (next to the Profile button), and cannot be disabled.
See the disparity?

The count itself is not the game.  The game is that "you should not have any unchecked mentions, so you need to go read the posts where someone has mentioned you".  I believe this is a negative pattern, because you should not be allowed to draw someone into a discussion thread like that, without providing them the context.

A rough equivalent would be for other members to be able to push their posts to specific members, so that in their board views, they'd have a list of messages "recommended" by others for that member specifically to read.


--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on February 28, 2024, 10:23:51 pm ---And anything beyond that, is simply normal interaction.
--- End quote ---
I was waiting for that: social pressure.  "This is the current world, so deal with it."

No, it is not.  When you mention someone in a discussion, you don't actually send them a postcard saying that you mentioned them in a discussion.
When you invite someone to a discussion, you don't just tell them "Come, this discussion involves you", you need to tell them why, provide a bit of context, or they will think you are an asshole.  (Only assholes wave others to come to them across a crowd, too; normal people go to the waved person instead.  The waving is a "power move", a social tactic, usually only done by a "higher-up" to an "underling".  In the next shindig, do that to your boss and see how they react.)
Thus, the "mention" mechanism as it stands, is an asshole way to try and drag others to a discussion.

It is NOT a normal interaction pattern.  The non-asshole normal interaction pattern would be to PM them, giving them the context, and telling why the PM'd member might be interested in participating in the discussion, just like you would in real life.


--- Quote from: T3sl4co1l on February 28, 2024, 10:23:51 pm ---How is it that I have not perceived an active harm from this underutilized and poorly known function?  Please tell me.
--- End quote ---
Because you don't care that some people are different than you, and assume that if they are, they must be wrong or need to fix themselves, I guess.
Or you haven't read the reasoning in previous messages.  Or you haven't thought about it enough.  How should I know?  You have only asserted that those arguments are "strawmen" and "imagined" and "easily defended" and "poor excuses".  You know, opinions asserted as facts, using social pressure (emotionally negative descriptors) with zero logic or reasoning.

That said, I do agree I could be wrong here.  It's just that to find out, I need logic and reasoning, not asserted opinions.

Nominal Animal:
To repeat: I have no problems working around the mechanism.  The question is, how will the mechanism affect discussions, and participation in discussions?  Participation by members with similar personality traits as myself, but not the workarounds I have?
(Uh, assuming that you consider the participation of members like me a positive, that is.  It is debatable, too.)

Mechanisms intended for a specific purpose rarely work out that way in real life.  Humans do what humans do, and I think it would be best to consider that and the possible negative long-term effects first.  Such a discussion was had about Thanks, too.

PlainName:

--- Quote from: tggzzz on February 29, 2024, 09:30:35 am ---The thanks mechanism on this website has been devalued by one (or more?) poster that thanks every response in his many many threads - even responses that call him an idiot! (Does that poster know about mentions?  >:D )

--- End quote ---

I don't think it has. It's just devalued for that user, but elsewhere it is as meaningful as the person giving thanks wants it to be. It is not a currency, after all, but simply a way to mark a comment for the poster's attention (and, even then, the intent has to be assumed).

Despite your aversion to 'egoboos' and the like, I think that responses to posts are important. Why bother typing profound stuff in when you don't know if anyone even reads it, never mind agrees or disagrees. So in that context a simple way to show that you find the post useful (in a thinking sense) would encourage the poster, whereas a complete lack of feedback will see them eventually give up. I realise that stuff like up and down voting can be abused on both sides, but some kind of indication that one is conversing in a way that other people can engage with really is important. The hard part is finding the balance, and here that seems to be the obtuse and opaque 'thanks' system.

The user you point at merely uses thanks to show that he has read the posts. They don't actually mean "thank you! (for something or other)". The issue you have is not the thanks per se, it is that the poster doesn't use them in the way you would, or the way you think they should. They problem is thus your narrow view of acceptable use (for a woolly and unspecified function).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod