General > General Technical Chat

How to tag someone in a post?

<< < (17/27) > >>

tggzzz:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on February 29, 2024, 09:50:34 am ---
--- 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.

--- End quote ---

Those are sensible and well-argued points.

I'll emphasise the "social pressure 'deal with it'", not caring about others being different, and (presumably) not reading/understanding the points that have been made.

Dave Packard had some very good principles (his 11 simple rules) addressing that...

"Think first of the other fellow. This is THE foundation—the first requisite—for getting along with others. And it is the one truly difficult accomplishment you must make. Gaining this, the rest will be “a breeze.”"

"Respect the other man’s personality rights. Respect as something sacred the other fellow’s right to be different from you. No two personalities are ever molded by precisely the same forces."

"Give sincere appreciation. If we think someone has done a thing well, we should never hesitate to let him know it. WARNING: This does not mean promiscuous use of obvious flattery. Flattery with most intelligent people gets exactly the reaction it deserves—contempt for the egotistical “phony” who stoops to it."

In this context, compare mentions with quotes: egotistical vs considered and explained

"Try to understand the other person. How would you react to similar circumstances? When you begin to see the “whys” of him you can’t help but get along better with him."

tggzzz:

--- Quote from: PlainName on February 29, 2024, 10:13:27 am ---
--- 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).

--- End quote ---

"Bad money drives out good". None of us has any clue how many of my 5k8 thanks are worthless.

If there was a way I could filter out the "idiotic thanks" so that nobody saw them, then I would agree with you (and be annoyed that I had to spend time doing it).


--- Quote ---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.

--- End quote ---

Errr. Why do you make those points?

Of course responses are important. Currently I've made 19k, gulp.

Of course indicating posts useful is important. But...
... mentions don't indicate the specific post.
... mentions don't indicate the points in a post.
... mentions don't indicate intention.
... mentions do indicate a person.
That's all suboptimal.



--- Quote ---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.

--- End quote ---

Downvoting/anti-thanks is routinely abused on other sites, often with the intention of discouraging individuals.

Finding the balance is not something any individual can do. If it was then FarceBook and Twatter would be far less unpleasant places!


--- Quote ---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).

--- End quote ---

What makes you so sure?

Can you read his mind? (Some people have hypothesised he has a mental condition)

That isn't a commonly understood definition of "thanking" (insert Humpty Dumpty reference, and state your his definition :) )

In other words, don't project your wishes/presumptions/understanding onto other posters.

PlainName:

--- Quote ---That isn't a commonly understood definition of "thanking"
--- End quote ---

Check out the cat photos section. I am really very sure that the 'thanks' there don't mean "Thank you for posting yet another cat photo". No, they mean stuff like "Nice, isn't that cute!", and "Ha ha ha, that's so funny". And a fair number would be "well I thanked so-and-so and it will look petty if I don't also thank this one".

The thanks thing doesn't mean thanks of the definition you suggest. It is just a wishy-washy way of negating masses of "I agree", "WHS", and similar content-free follow-ups whilst not actually being up-votes.


--- Quote ---In other words, don't project your wishes/presumptions/understanding onto other posters.
--- End quote ---

Et tu, Brutus.

tggzzz:
Good that you haven't anything to say about the other substantive points, and prefer to concentrate on this...


--- Quote from: PlainName on February 29, 2024, 11:40:23 am ---
--- Quote ---That isn't a commonly understood definition of "thanking"
--- End quote ---

Check out the cat photos section. I am really very sure that the 'thanks' there don't mean "Thank you for posting yet another cat photo". No, they mean stuff like "Nice, isn't that cute!", and "Ha ha ha, that's so funny". And a fair number would be "well I thanked so-and-so and it will look petty if I don't also thank this one".

--- End quote ---

Context, dear boy, context. My statement is correct in that context.

In addition I see you are (unwittingly?) channelling - as I hinted and you snipped - Humpty Dumpty, viz.
    “I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/humpty-dumpty


--- Quote ---The thanks thing doesn't mean thanks of the definition you suggest. It is just a wishy-washy way of negating masses of "I agree", "WHS", and similar content-free follow-ups whilst not actually being up-votes

--- End quote ---

That's exactly the kind of thing that Lewis Carroll was parodying/illustrating.

Ian.M:
Mentions have a use - attracting a specific user's attention to a post, or indicating which user a reply is directed to, without the need to quote and edit out the irrelevant parts.  However once they've done that their purpose is served, so IMHO they should vanish from any user page listing them as soon as that user has visited the post containing the mention.  There certainly shouldn't be any 'keeping score' of mentions.  Also alerts on mentions should be configurable by the receiver.  If that cant be done in the current SMF configuration, then IMHO  Dave should disable them as soon as, and as thoroughly as possible.

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