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.
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.
I was referring to the "thanks", guess that should've been made clearer.
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.
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.)
Right, like I said, it's like a PM. So we're in agreement about that?
It serves the social function of being an in-public announcement of such; a beacon as it were.
Yes, like say a card in the mail inviting you somewhere.
Which, doesn't really mean anything
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".
You've pulled this one out of context -- it's in the same paragraph as social function; I'm talking about social function.
I don't appreciate being told what I'm not. I think you should have some idea... hmm, I wonder how well it really comes through in text, actually; maybe it's diluted by my realism, or you're misreading my realism as lack thereof. Well, if it's any reference point at all... I keep unread messages/emails at zero, and my room is... not clean, but items in frequent use are organized after a manner; an independent observer would see it as a bit messy or chaotic, but that's mainly due to my lack of shelving or other horizontal space on which to organize.
...I should break down that pile of cardboard boxes some year...
Anyway, more to the point, I almost always respond to PMs, mainly because I don't want to give the impression of ignoring someone who's taken the time to reach out personally. I guess whether that's grounded in conscientiousness or another mode of responsibility, isn't clear, but IANAPsych and it sounds like that's at least a facet of it.
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.
You left out the unread message count, which is also shown on every page (or maybe that's assumed or implicit). So it's working as intended? It draws attention.
How else would you suggest to design a feature, where the purpose is to attract ones' attention in response to a prompt?
The most innocuous option is to make it an entirely separate page, that one must remember exists, and to check regularly, with no [number] alert or dialog whatsoever.
That will completely leave out the inattentive, lazy, or ignorant (i.e., not accusatory, but those who literally don't know it's even a page or feature).
Having a selection of options, so that the end user can tune it to their preference (or disable it entirely if they wish to permanently ignore it*), makes perfect sense.
*Disabled PMs, I think? gives an alert that you can't message that person; so there is an immediate feedback, further implying some confidence that the message will be received, if it can be sent at all. This wouldn't make sense in an inline mention. Maybe if there were an expando-box below Attachments where you could ask the system to tag someone and it checks whether they can be tagged, but that's very ungainly for something that really makes the most sense as the casual "hey @foo, what do you think of this?".
...But I don't see how we've gotten into 6+ pages drenched with psychology only to say "the plugin is undercooked and needs [these usability features]". Something must be missing? This is way too trivial a conclusion to not have been raised at the start, and simply... acknowledged by everyone else.
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.
That's a good idea. A sort of "pinned for you" section, but don't call it that because that implies something very different, but anyway, either they decay (drop off) over time, or disappear as you click them (which, I guess is the current behavior too, just from a different page? It's been so long since I've been tagged I don't even know how it decrements).
Which could manifest in the "new replies", "show unread", or just plain on its respective (sub)forum, maybe all three (maybe depending on user preference too), where current users are just as likely to see it as any other thread.
And anything beyond that, is simply normal interaction.
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.
I don't think doing that is an assh--
Am I an assh--
...
Maybe I haven't been on large enough teams to experience the full breadth and depth of those interactions -- I have quite intentionally and successfully avoided say office politics, and the authoritarian regimes, and even more generally, narcissistic personalities, they proliferate under, for the most part -- and I have most definitely been in a [almost always technical; for that matter, project-relevant] conversation with someone, and waved/shouted someone else in without including direct verbal context
because they're involved in the same project too, and I know this, and that's why I'm inviting their opinion on it; put another way, the context is implicit. And no one's shown visible disgust at being mentioned in this way, granted that if they were busy with some technical task, that active context is broken, and it's not like I make a habit of it. This is just... normal, informal / impromptu meeting stuff, and occasionally socialization.
So, I don't think I can say you're wrong about this, as it likely goes beyond my experience, but it almost certainly isn't true completely in general.
It could also be Finnish customs are more formal or polite. I know the stereotype is very antisocial and private and independent, which, is just a stereotype of course, but all stereotypes are based in a degree of truth, albeit a distortion or caricature thereof. Perhaps this is a difference to American customs. (Have you spent much time in the US? GB? I forget if you've mentioned before. I certainly haven't spent any time in Europe, so I am ignorant of these things; beyond what English speakers have brought to forums such as this, heh.) So,
where it is true, may also matter.
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.
Anyway, back to mentions -- in this case, it's a link to a post; if the post doesn't have any obvious "in" for you, then, you've spent thirty seconds scanning an entirely missable post, so what, you're going to do that scanning the next half-dozen candidate new threads anyway..? And at best, it's something you didn't see before, and are thankful it was brought to your attention (maybe you missed it as the title wasn't catchy to you, maybe thread drift brought it onto a now-relevant topic, etc.).
How is it that I have not perceived an active harm from this underutilized and poorly known function? Please tell me.
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.
Again, the "strawmen" are more the -- see my previous post.
Which... ah, I see what I did; I replied to you specifically, but also drifted back into prior context, whereas one assumes content below the quoted reply is, y'know, in reply to that. I should use delimiters more often -- sorry about that.
Yes, I have no issue with your points -- and the missing features above are consistent with your first messages in this thread, for example.
The most direct context of my replies in this thread starts here,
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-to-tag-someone-in-a-post/msg5361794/#msg5361794 I have little care for this thread overall and mainly came in to poke the nest. Judging by the "thanks", and today's volume of activity, it seems that's been "rewarded" (in whatever sense(s) you choose to read that as, lol).
Tim
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
