How to "mention" someone?

[ebastler]

Today I saw, for the first time I believe, my "Profile" button highlighted and indicating a new "mention". And indeed there was a post which mentioned @ebastler, where the username was also an active link to the profile, and the reference had triggered the (unobtrusive) notification to me.

Quoting the post to see the underlying markup showed:

Code: [Select]

[member=105127]ebastler[/member]
How does one create such active "mentions"? Just typing "@username" does not seem to do the trick.

[magic]

Dunno, does this work?
@ebastler

[ebastler]

It does! What did you do?

[magic]

I'm the laziest asshole in the universe, so I simply copied the text you quoted
@ebastler

Hmm, I changed UID to mine and got no notification. Maybe I need to enable something, dunno. Did you get a notification about the above?

[ebastler]

I'm the laziest asshole in the universe, so I simply copied the text you quoted
@ebastler

Hmm, I changed UID to mine and got no notification. Or maybe I need to enable something, dunno.

You probably did not get notified since you were already looking at this thread. As soon as you have seen the reppective post, the notification disappears.

Yeah, so one can manually create those mentions by looking up the user's ID number and typing out the markup. But that's awkward, there must be a shortcut?

[magic]

One guess is that maybe it only works in the "WYSIWYG" editor.

[ebastler]

I only see a checkbox to enable or disable email notifications of mentions. (Mine is unchecked.) Is there another option which enables the mention mechanism per se?

I just asked the guy who "mentioned" me how he did it. Let's see...

[iMo]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-to-tag-someone-in-a-post/

[metebalci]

I only see a checkbox to enable or disable email notifications of mentions. (Mine is unchecked.) Is there another option which enables the mention mechanism per se?

I just asked the guy who "mentioned" me how he did it. Let's see...

To me it seems like @hopefully_does_not_exist is stored as plaintext, but then why some are rendered as links some are not is quite puzzling. If it is not stored as plaintext, why if I quote your reply the mention becomes alive, then something on the server side should convert it to a mention but why it does not work for you then.

Edit: I think it is not stored as plain text. When I click modify for this post, I see \@ symbol automatically translated to a \[\member=xx] tag, I cannot write this without slashes it is shown as \@ otherwise. So I think, somehow, when you use this, it is not converted to this format.

Edit2: The username is checked, so if it does not exist, mention does not become a link naturally. So maybe whatever function is this, your mentions cannot find the username so they are kept as plain text rather than converting it to \[\member tags.

When you quote this and post, @ebastler, does it become plain text ?

[tggzzz]

Today I saw, for the first time I believe, my "Profile" button highlighted and indicating a new "mention". And indeed there was a post which mentioned @ebastler, where the username was also an active link to the profile, and the reference had triggered the (unobtrusive) notification to me.

Horrible, isn't it.

I don't want to be mentioned. I do want my points to be discussed.

This "mentioning" is merely copying the sub-standard FarceBoor, Twatter features bugs. Those superficial transient websites prevent decent quoting, thus preventing subtle valuable discussions. I don't want that here, thank you very much.

[ebastler]

To me it seems like "@username" is stored as plaintext, but then why some are rendered as links some are not is quite puzzling. If it is not stored as plaintext, why if I quote your reply the mention becomes alive, then something on the server side should convert it to a mention but why it does not work for you then.

When you quote this and post, @ebastler, does it become plain text ?

That is an interesting experiment, thanks for the suggestion. I don't think the "mention" links will disappear by my quoting, since I see the [member] tags in the plain-text rendition of the quote.

I can, in fact, create such links myself by typing out the whole tag, like so: @username. But that's quite impractical, since I first need to look up the user's account number. In fact, only that number determines where the link goes to; the text between the tags seems arbitrary.

[metebalci]

To me it seems like "@username" is stored as plaintext, but then why some are rendered as links some are not is quite puzzling. If it is not stored as plaintext, why if I quote your reply the mention becomes alive, then something on the server side should convert it to a mention but why it does not work for you then.

When you quote this and post, @ebastler, does it become plain text ?

That is an interesting experiment, thanks for the suggestion. I don't think the "mention" links will disappear by my quoting, since I see the [member] tags in the plain-text rendition of the quote.

I can, in fact, create such links myself by typing out the whole tag, like so: @username. But that's quite impractical, since I first need to look up the user's account number. In fact, only that number determines where the link goes to; the text between the tags seems arbitrary.

My current answer is the function somewhere client or server side not sure, which finds the member from the username when at symbol is used is not working for you. I actually thought it is client side and maybe you cannot access the js file so it is not working (this would be a simple answer) but I could not find yet where this is implemented.

[ebastler]

Horrible, isn't it.

I don't want to be mentioned. I do want my points to be discussed.

This "mentioning" is merely copying the sub-standard FarceBoor, Twatter features bugs. Those superficial transient websites prevent decent quoting, thus preventing subtle valuable discussions. I don't want that here, thank you very much.

I would find a working "mentioning" function quite useful.

If I want to discuss someone's points, I insert suitable quotes of the relevant sections of their post, and of course I don't want that functionality to be removed. But in addition to that, at times I want to bring something to the attention of a specific user, who may not even be an active participant of the ongoing discussion. (Without doing that "in the back room" via a PM.) The mention function would allow for that nicely.

[tggzzz]

Horrible, isn't it.

I don't want to be mentioned. I do want my points to be discussed.

This "mentioning" is merely copying the sub-standard FarceBoor, Twatter features bugs. Those superficial transient websites prevent decent quoting, thus preventing subtle valuable discussions. I don't want that here, thank you very much.

I would find a working "mentioning" function quite useful.

If I want to discuss someone's points, I insert suitable quotes of the relevant sections of their post, and of course I don't want that functionality to be removed. But in addition to that, at times I want to bring something to the attention of a specific user, who may not even be an active participant of the ongoing discussion. (Without doing that "in the back room" via a PM.) The mention function would allow for that nicely.

That is tasteful usage.

Unfortunately FarceBorkers/Twatterers coming here will tend to import conventions rather than use this forum's conventions. Yes, they should read the forum guidelines, but the number of double posts indicates that too many don't.

Since I don't want my inbox (here or elsewhere) demanding my attention with "look at me" FarceBook/Twatter notifications, I turn all such things off. Hence I won't notice if I'm mentioned, and that suits me just fine

[RoGeorge]

Always please discuss about what was written, not about the person who wrote.
So, quote the text you wish to refer to, and please don't use the mentioning notification.

Not to say, small dopamine spikes can be very addictive for some.  With time, the mentioning practice might turn some people into attention-whores, just like the "Say Thanks" button already turned some people here into thumbs-up whores, complaining for why not pressing "Say Thanks" after explicitly writing "thank you all".

Mentioning is rude, for "gossiping" about someone who's not there.  Also, "forces" the notified to take a side/stance/action about whatever it was discussed there.  Maybe the notified is not interested at all into that subject.  Then, joining to that talk will force the notified into wasting own time to investigate the history and context of that notification.  Not nice.

[thm_w]

Not to say, small dopamine spikes can be very addictive for some.  With time, the mentioning practice might turn some people into attention-whores, just like the "Say Thanks" button already turned some people here into thumbs-up whores, complaining for why not pressing "Say Thanks" after explicitly writing "thank you all".

Mentioning is rude, for "gossiping" about someone who's not there.  Also, "forces" the notified to take a side/stance/action about whatever it was discussed there.  Maybe the notified is not interested at all into that subject.  Then, joining to that talk will force the notified into wasting own time to investigate the history and context of that notification.  Not nice.

Chill

[tggzzz]

Not to say, small dopamine spikes can be very addictive for some.  With time, the mentioning practice might turn some people into attention-whores, just like the "Say Thanks" button already turned some people here into thumbs-up whores, complaining for why not pressing "Say Thanks" after explicitly writing "thank you all".

Mentioning is rude, for "gossiping" about someone who's not there.  Also, "forces" the notified to take a side/stance/action about whatever it was discussed there.  Maybe the notified is not interested at all into that subject.  Then, joining to that talk will force the notified into wasting own time to investigate the history and context of that notification.  Not nice.

Chill

They are a bad concept originating on platforms that were deliberately enshittified for commercial reasons.

They encourage egoboos and emphasise personalities. On technical forums it is better to emphasise points and counter-points, arguments and counter-arguments

[thm_w]

They are a bad concept originating on platforms that were deliberately enshittified for commercial reasons.

They encourage egoboos and emphasise personalities. On technical forums it is better to emphasise points and counter-points, arguments and counter-arguments

Likes work fine here, an improvement to the forum IMO (reduces clutter and bumping inactive threads), work somewhat OK on youtube comments (ignoring the terrible comment system), and on many other sites.
Just because you dislike the platform doesn't mean the technologies or features they pioneered are inherently bad.

[ebastler]

I don't want to be mentioned. I do want my points to be discussed.

This "mentioning" is merely copying the sub-standard FarceBoor, Twatter features bugs. Those superficial transient websites prevent decent quoting, thus preventing subtle valuable discussions. I don't want that here, thank you very much.

Always please discuss about what was written, not about the person who wrote.
So, quote the text you wish to refer to, and please don't use the mentioning notification.

Not to say, small dopamine spikes can be very addictive for some.  With time, the mentioning practice might turn some people into attention-whores, just like the "Say Thanks" button already turned some people here into thumbs-up whores, complaining for why not pressing "Say Thanks" after explicitly writing "thank you all".

I would argue that the overuse of emphasis, bold and colored text, with the agitation it conveys, is dragging down the quality of forum discussions more than the "thanks" mechanism ever has and the "mention" mechanism ever will. Let's disable all this new-fangled stuff and go back to plain old ASCII, the way information exchange was meant to work from the days of good ol' Usenet! 

Seriously though: I have never observed complaints about a missing "thank you", and I find that mechanism helpful. As discussed above, there are helpful ways to use "mentioning" -- and I see even less likelihood that mentions could become an ego thing. You can't even see how often someone else was mentioned, so how could this become a status symbol?

What I was really hoping to get from my original post above was clarification how the mechanism works. For some users, including metebalci, simply typing @username creates an active mention. For others, includng me, it does not. Where is the secret switch? 

[magic]

Does it tell you who mentioned you and in which thread? I think I would quickly develop a sense for whether to click on the notification or not, like I already have a sense for whether to read new posts to a thread I'm following based on the last poster's username

A mechanism is a mechanism. It can be used to provoke people to get involved in drama, or it can be used to notify them of stuff they may potentially care about but have missed. It's like CC somebody on a mailing list. How it will end up used is determined by the users and moderation.

That being said, I see almost nobody using "mentions" here, so not a problem?

[RoGeorge]

Does it tell you who mentioned you and in which thread?

It doesn't IIRC.  It pops a number in the top of the page buttons, very similar with a received PM.  Than you click and tells you who mentioned you, or something.

What's ugly about mentioning is that last time I've checked, the notifications for being mentioned can not be disabled from the user settings profile.  So either handcraft your own blocking filters in uBlock or alike addblockers, or you'll have to endure them.

Seriously though: I have never observed complaints about a missing "thank you", and I find that mechanism helpful.

I'll send you an example by PM.

The 'Say Thanks' button is helpful indeed.  Though, it all become awkward for the OP when people start demanding or expecting to be thanked.  The problem is it will be many answers, some answers will be more useful, but all the contributors took their time trying to help.  By thanking each reply it makes the thanks button meaningless.  By not thanking to everybody, it will create some stigma, some might get discouraged, thinking their post was not appreciated. 

Another thing, the 'Say Thanks' is used differently by different people, or by context.  Can mean:
- Thank you for your help, or
- That's exactly what I wanted to write
- That was the post that solved my problem
- I share the same opinion/I'm with you
- Interesting info, didn't know that
- Thank you for a valuable attachment or link
- That was funny/good joke/I laughed
- Encouragement for a project
etc.  With rare exceptions, I'm using the 'say thank' button when a post tells something relevant I didn't know before, or when the post made me think about some unrelated connection that generates a new idea, or answers a question I might have had in my backlog.

Anyway, nobody asked to remove the 'Say Thanks'.
Only saying sending unblockable notifications is bad.  It is no different than spam.

Too low effort and too impersonal to mention someone, too high effort to answer to a notification.  This place is for volunteer posting, not for summoning requests for an answer from a specific user.  If you must have that specific answer, then kindly ask by PM if the user would like to join to the topic where you were coming from.

Regardless of my opinion, not rhetorical questions:
Why do you want/need to mention somebody?  What reaction do you expect, or what should the mentioned do about a notification?  You want to mention users because your dopamine spiked when you saw you were mentioned?  Or do you want the extra power to summon others' attention to your posts?  Or is it because you want an authoritative answer?  Or is it just the habit to have this feature here, too, just like in other social media networks?  Or maybe is it some other use I miss entirely about sending notifications?

[tggzzz]

Does it tell you who mentioned you and in which thread? I think I would quickly develop a sense for whether to click on the notification or not, like I already have a sense for whether to read new posts to a thread I'm following based on the last poster's username

A mechanism is a mechanism. It can be used to provoke people to get involved in drama, or it can be used to notify them of stuff they may potentially care about but have missed. It's like CC somebody on a mailing list. How it will end up used is determined by the users and moderation.

Relying on taste and good judgement is a losing proposition on the internet. (Doubly so w.r.t. malice[1]). I fondly remember life before Eternal September

Anything that gives the moderators extra "unnecessary" work is A Bad Thing.

[1]And notice how I've "maliciously" "mentioned" you in this post. At least I didn't insert an incorrect number

That being said, I see almost nobody using "mentions" here, so not a problem?

@Magic

Let's hope it remains that way.

[ebastler]

Does it tell you who mentioned you and in which thread? I think I would quickly develop a sense for whether to click on the notification or not, like I already have a sense for whether to read new posts to a thread I'm following based on the last poster's username

Yes, you can look up the list of "mentions" and it gives you exactly those details. And of course it's your choice whether you want to view that list at all. There is just an obtrusive number behind the "Mentions" menu item if there are mentions in threads you have not seen yet.

[ebastler]

Anyway, nobody asked to remove the 'Say Thanks'.
Only saying sending unblockable notifications is bad.  It is no different than spam.

Nobody talked about unblockabe notifications either. Feel free to ignore any "mentions".

I don't get it why this mechanism triggers these massive rants in a couple of users. "Facebook is dreadful. Facebook has a tagging mechanism. A tagging mechanism will therefore make this forum dreadful." That kind of "logic" should not be accepted here.

Unfortunately nobody has been able to shed more light onto how mentions can be created, if that does not work for a particular user.

[magic]

[1]And notice how I've "maliciously" "mentioned" you in this post. At least I didn't insert an incorrect number

Actually, I didn't notice anything and needed to "quote" your post to see what you are talking about.

So this doesn't seem to have worked as expected. I don't know how it's supposed to work.