How to tag someone in a post?

[Zero999]

I'm not really sure what bigjoncoop means by tag. If it's just create a link to their profile, then that's easy, as I've just demonstrated. I right clicked on their name, copied the link and pasted into this post in url tags.

[tggzzz]

@PlainName I agree. Repeat I disagree.

That's a crude extreme example of how merely mentioning someone is poor style and untasteful. While both of those statements is true, the lost context is critical.

It could, heaven forbid, be used as a "weapon": add such a tag to many posts in a tiny font so the recipient gets inundated but other people don't notice, or be malicious by using the wrong member id

It seems unlikely one could generate enough conspiracy to create a DDoS this way, and a lone actor can simply be reported to admin and banned.  It's... not difficult, there are systems in place for this already.

Tim

Completely valid, of course! But significant irritation could be caused.

I expect I could dream up ways to do that in a manner that (superficially) appears justifiable and even helpful. At least one member here relentlessly (?mis?)uses the "thanks" mechanism on every post in their threads, even those that are distinctly uncomplimentary. So far I've been thanked 5k8 times, which is pretty meaningless.

For the avoidance of doubt, I dislike any form of up/downvoting: too easy to game, and if I say something sensible/helpful here, it shouldn't imply the same elsewhere. Judge what I write, not who I am.

[tggzzz]

I'm not really sure what bigjoncoop means by tag. If it's just create a link to their profile, then that's easy, as I've just demonstrated. I right clicked on their name, copied the link and pasted into this post in url tags.

I suspect he merely thinks that he's used to it elsewhere, and this place is unfamiliar.

That's fine, but the best course of action is to (gradually) grok why this place is good and better than other places.

I always hate it when English people go on holiday abroad, and complain they can't get decent bacon and eggs, and that the policeman wear funny hats

[tooki]

Please do not "tag" or "mention" someone.
Please do quote their points.

And if the person you want to mention has not been involved in the thread, quite possibly is not aware that it even exists, but is known to be expert on the matters being discussed?

Include a link to one or more of the experts posts?
PM the expert?

But maybe the expert has seen the thread and doesn't want to be involved. There are some Awful/Aweful Examples of threads started by certain incontinent posters

I'm not a fan of arguments along the lines of "We shouldn't have fast cars / guns / pseudoephedrine / modems / books because bad people exist who might use them in a bad way".

There are mechanisms to deal with bad people directly, without taking away useful things from normal people.

I'll avoid the detour into that rathole territory.

I will note that mechanisms are only useful if reliably enforced. That is far from guaranteed. Take, for example, the "thanks" mechanism on this website; there's at least one poster that thanks every response in the myriad of twattish threads he has started. (N.B. some people directly tell him he is an idiot, and he thanks them!)

If he’s thankful for being called an idiot, then… more power to him?

It’s weird, but harmless. It’s not like it takes away someone else’s thanks. There’s no finite supply of them on the server.

[soldar]

I'm not really sure what bigjoncoop means by tag. If it's just create a link to their profile, then that's easy, as I've just demonstrated. I right clicked on their name, copied the link and pasted into this post in url tags.

I other board software when I log in or refresh I get two notices at the top of the page, one is for "tags" (posts where i have been mentioned to call my attention to the post or thread) and one for quotes where i have been quoted or responded to. I like both things.

To be honest the software of this forum is the one I like the least. I also like it when in the forum main thread list I can mouse over the thread title and see the text at the beginning of the post so I can get a better idea if I want to open it or not. Here there are threads with vague or cryptic titles that I have opened several times just to find out I am not interested.

So, if we had a vote I would vote for (1) see thread beginning o mouse over (2) Quotes notification and (3) tags notifications.

OTOH the main thing I am here for is the high quality content and there is so much crap around the internet that the forum software is the least of issues.

[tggzzz]

OTOH the main thing I am here for is the high quality content and there is so much crap around the internet that the forum software is the least of issues.

Various "features" are used on other sites to attract attention. People that succumb to such misadventures are more likely to like the crap there.

Hence, although it doesn't logically follow, I have the (partially satisfied) hope that if we keep such misfeatures away then the crap will stay away.

[soldar]

Various "features" are used on other sites to attract attention. People that succumb to such misadventures are more likely to like the crap there.

Hence, although it doesn't logically follow, I have the (partially satisfied) hope that if we keep such misfeatures away then the crap will stay away.

I guess it is a matter of opinion and I do not think I agree. At least for me implementing those things would make the forum easier to use and more enjoyable and I do not think they would attract more crappy posters than we already enjoy. I think the way to keep crappy posts and posters away is with good community habits and good moderation but that is just my opinion.

[tggzzz]

Various "features" are used on other sites to attract attention. People that succumb to such misadventures are more likely to like the crap there.

Hence, although it doesn't logically follow, I have the (partially satisfied) hope that if we keep such misfeatures away then the crap will stay away.

I guess it is a matter of opinion and I do not think I agree. At least for me implementing those things would make the forum easier to use and more enjoyable and I do not think they would attract more crappy posters than we already enjoy. I think the way to keep crappy posts and posters away is with good community habits and good moderation but that is just my opinion.

I don't see those features would allow me to do anything more or more easily.

The good community habits are, indeed, key.

Unfortunately I've been irritated recently by a several new prolific posters that, for example, prefer to waste people's time with questions that easily be googled. (They irritate other people too). I remember Eternal September, with displeasure.

[soldar]

I don't see those features would allow me to do anything more or more easily.

To each his own. I participate in other forums and I like it that I open the page and right there I have notifications for (1) quotes, (2) mentions and (3) private messages. I really like not having to go look for these things and i cannot see how this could bother anybody but, again, to each his own. I also like the mouse over thing where I can see at first glance what the post is about. Again, I cannot see how this could bother anybody. You do not have to use these things if you don't want to. I think pretty much every other forum has these features and I do not see that they degrade the quality.

And, yes, in every forum I visit, including this one, I have a few posters on my ignore list.

[tggzzz]

Quotes? The "new replies to your posts" page does what I need: direct me to a thread I have previously found interesting.

PMs? Yes, necessary

Mentions? Quotes are better, since they contain the context and content.

I've only very recently added a few people to my ignore list. I don't like doing that. (And it doesn't work properly anyway).

[abeyer]

Quotes? The "new replies to your posts" page does what I need: direct me to a thread I have previously found interesting.

Kind of, but not really. It doesn't differentiate at all between people directly replying/continuing a thread of conversation I was involved in vs. a thread that I posted in once years ago that just refuses to die and has gone off topic or strayed into stuff I don't much care about anymore.

Mentions? Quotes are better, since they contain the context and content.

You keep repeating that without actually responding to the points made that they are for different things, and just dwelling on the fact that it can be misused where quotes would have been more appropriate.

I've only very recently added a few people to my ignore list. I don't like doing that. (And it doesn't work properly anyway).

Seems like a perfect example of why the minimal features/minimal functionality isn't necessarily a total good... any effect it has on reducing low quality posters is balanced by the fact that the tools for users and mods to deal with them also suffer.

[tggzzz]

Quotes? The "new replies to your posts" page does what I need: direct me to a thread I have previously found interesting.

Kind of, but not really. It doesn't differentiate at all between people directly replying/continuing a thread of conversation I was involved in vs. a thread that I posted in once years ago that just refuses to die and has gone off topic or strayed into stuff I don't much care about anymore.

Although imperfect, for me it works well enough for that purpose.

I do occasionally "ignore threads" that have become completely uninteresting to me. I'm now having use that mechanism for a few irritating posters.

Mentions? Quotes are better, since they contain the context and content.

You keep repeating that without actually responding to the points made that they are for different things, and just dwelling on the fact that it can be misused where quotes would have been more appropriate.

I don't really understand that sentence.

Inasfar as I so understand it, I don't want egoboos (i.e. mentions), but I am happy to discuss specific points I have made. Hence quotes are fine but mentions are not.

I've only very recently added a few people to my ignore list. I don't like doing that. (And it doesn't work properly anyway).

Seems like a perfect example of why the minimal features/minimal functionality isn't necessarily a total good... any effect it has on reducing low quality posters is balanced by the fact that the tools for users and mods to deal with them also suffer.

Even if mechanism X is imperfect, it doesn't mean mechanism Y is better/useful/good/etc.

That smacks of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done". That's a common fallacy, particularly in politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician's_syllogism

[abeyer]

I don't really understand that sentence.

Inasfar as I so understand it, I don't want egoboos (i.e. mentions), but I am happy to discuss specific points I have made. Hence quotes are fine but mentions are not.

That seems disingenuous... people have repeatedly explained their use cases why mentions are useful in this thread -- you just don't like them yourself so choose to dismiss their positions and act like they couldn't possibly have a reason for mentioning someone without explicitly quoting something that person said. (I'd love to have seen your high school history teacher's face when reading your essays where every single historical figure's name is accompanied by a quote of theirs  )

That smacks of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done".

Except no one is even asking for anything to be done, given that mentions, as has been pointed out, already exist and work fine here, they're just slightly awkward to enter the bbcode.

[Zero999]

I wonder if it's possible to implement this, with the facility for users to opt out, so they can prevent others tagging them?

[PlainName]

I wonder if it's possible to implement this, with the facility for users to opt out, so they can prevent others tagging them?

How could they opt out? Someone just puts a @ in front and you're @tagged - no way you can stop them doing that. Perhaps you meant opt out of notification of the tag. Subtle difference

[Nominal Animal]

(I'd love to have seen your high school history teacher's face when reading your essays where every single historical figure's name is accompanied by a quote of theirs  )

(I'd love to have seen your high school history teacher's face when you told them you needed to send every one of the historical figures you mentioned a letter or postcard to tell them you referenced them in your essay.)

No, really.  If you want to refer to someone, just use their username in the text.  Why do you insist they need to be notified you used their username in a post?

If you want to know who has referred to you, just do a forum search on your username, and sort the results most recent first.  I sometimes do that, but limiting the advanced search to posts made by a specific other member, to see if I've already discussed the issue with that member, to try and avoid repeating the same arguments.  (As many dislike my long-ass posts, I'm sure they'd be even more aggravated if I kept repeating the same argument, so I try hard to not do that.)

I do not generally want to know if others refer to me in their posts.  If they think I should participate in a thread, they can send me a friendly one-liner PM.  I don't need to be notified.  If I need to be notified of something, PMs exist for exactly that purpose.

Why should I spend my very meager cognitive faculties to try and ignore information that basically nobody needs, but a few members here think might be nice?

If I could disable the mentions, I would: I find them distracting, clamoring for my attention, when cognitively I don't want to know or react to people talking about me without telling me the context.  I do not understand the purpose of mentions, unless it is exactly to affect emotions (involving connectedness and enticing/manipulating others to at least observe the discussion/thread just because they were mentioned), so in my view, they are purely a social "game", and provide no useful function that private messages or forum advanced search do not already do better.

[PlainName]

I do not understand the purpose of mentions

Feature creep.

Originally they were just a way to refer to someone in-thread. So, for instance, I am replying to you now but I might then also comment to another poster in this same comment. Why? Many reasons, but perhaps it's just an aside (@bloggs - we discussed this in t'other thread) or something. The point is that it's simply making someone else aware that this particular bit is aimed at them. And, often, a quote (if one could be found) would be way over the top and inappropriate.

Nothing wrong with that, and kind of clever. The comment is aimed *at* someone, and the @ is just a way to compress the necessary wibble that would otherwise reflect that.

Then someone implements the notifications and there you have mentions. I see it used on sites where there is no support for it at all - no notifications, not highlights, nothing - but it is still appropriate when used as shorthand.

[Nominal Animal]

Originally they were just a way to refer to someone in-thread.

Sure; and I use the long-hand version of it ("I discussed this with bloggs in another thread"), and that's perfectly okay.  It's perfectly okay to refer to any of my discussions using my name that way, too; it is the notification I was mentioned thus that aggravates me.

It is one more thing clamoring for my attention.  I don't want that; it is useless cognitive load with no other purpose than "being social" somehow.  I don't wanna.

The point is that it's simply making someone else aware that this particular bit is aimed at them. And, often, a quote (if one could be found) would be way over the top and inappropriate.

Yes; and my point is that making such a mention throw a notification to that referred to person, is like sending a postcard to anyone you've mentioned in a discussion saying you did so, with a link to the discussion.  That is the useless, annoying, social gamification bit I dislike.

If a member could disable seeing the notifications, I'd be absolutely fine with this.  I have no problem with the shorthand, either, as I do read '@' as 'at' anyway, and it is obvious from the context even if you hadn't noticed it before.  I only object to getting the darn notifications when someone 'at's me; it's is unwanted and unwarranted cognitive load that does actually bug me a bit.  Perhaps I'm an odd one out –– I even tend to scroll the post edit window so I don't see the animated emoticons when I don't want to use them, because they too are distracting; and before looking at interesting threads, I do always read my PM's ––, but I just fail to see the utility of a mention sending an unavoidable notification to the mentioned member.

[Nominal Animal]

And I can immediately see how new users can start bugging members to answer their questions or to participate in the threads they start in the hopes they will help, simply by 'at'-ing them.

There; I warned ya.  Don't tell me "nobody could have foreseen this would happen" in a year or so, when older members start leaving because they get fed up with the incessant "mentions" from newbies wanting quick answers.

[tggzzz]

(I'd love to have seen your high school history teacher's face when reading your essays where every single historical figure's name is accompanied by a quote of theirs  )

(I'd love to have seen your high school history teacher's face when you told them you needed to send every one of the historical figures you mentioned a letter or postcard to tell them you referenced them in your essay.)

No, really.  If you want to refer to someone, just use their username in the text.  Why do you insist they need to be notified you used their username in a post?

If you want to know who has referred to you, just do a forum search on your username, and sort the results most recent first.  I sometimes do that, but limiting the advanced search to posts made by a specific other member, to see if I've already discussed the issue with that member, to try and avoid repeating the same arguments.  (As many dislike my long-ass posts, I'm sure they'd be even more aggravated if I kept repeating the same argument, so I try hard to not do that.)

I do not generally want to know if others refer to me in their posts.  If they think I should participate in a thread, they can send me a friendly one-liner PM.  I don't need to be notified.  If I need to be notified of something, PMs exist for exactly that purpose.

Why should I spend my very meager cognitive faculties to try and ignore information that basically nobody needs, but a few members here think might be nice?

If I could disable the mentions, I would: I find them distracting, clamoring for my attention, when cognitively I don't want to know or react to people talking about me without telling me the context.  I do not understand the purpose of mentions, unless it is exactly to affect emotions (involving connectedness and enticing/manipulating others to at least observe the discussion/thread just because they were mentioned), so in my view, they are purely a social "game", and provide no useful function that private messages or forum advanced search do not already do better.

Precisely, particularly the phrases I've emphasised.

I have no problem with the @tggzzz convention, provided it is obvious why I am being referred to - but frequently it isn't.

I hate the way mentions are used as "look at me, pay attention to me" crap that is at the centre of FarceBook and Twatter.

[metebalci]

(I'd love to have seen your high school history teacher's face when reading your essays where every single historical figure's name is accompanied by a quote of theirs  )

(I'd love to have seen your high school history teacher's face when you told them you needed to send every one of the historical figures you mentioned a letter or postcard to tell them you referenced them in your essay.)

No, really.  If you want to refer to someone, just use their username in the text.  Why do you insist they need to be notified you used their username in a post?

I have asked this to tggzzz because:

Just trying to understand. If I want to say in a post something about you wrote, you prefer me to write "tggzzz said ..." rather than "@tggzzz said..." ? You mentioned "quote" should be used but independent of its use, there is a need for a "mention"=reference to someone in a text.

None of that, as I have previously and explicitly stated.
If you want to say something about one of my posts, quote that post. Don't make it about me. Do make it about what I said.

It was like he insisted to use quote's (and not call just by name). English is not my first language, and I have not stayed in an English speaking country more than a month, so probably I misunderstand the point here.

If you want to refer to someone, just use their username in the text.  Why do you insist they need to be notified you used their username in a post?

I do not care about notifications at all (edit: I mean I dont need this feature, if it exists, there has to be an opt-out). I do not care if there is a separate page that you can see all the places you are mentioned. I understand for some these could be useful, not much for me. My main reason is partly aesthetics partly correct usage. In mailing lists, at least the ones I was following years ago, people usually were using the first names, or signing the posts by their names, so when replying, it was obvious how to address someone. I actually started doing the same here as a habit, but then I see it is not a custom, almost nobody signs the posts with their names, so I also do not anymore. Also, the usernames here either do not represent the (real) names or even if it represents many may not guess if it is a real name or a nick name (e.g. my username).

Aesthetically, I do prefer to mark a username in a text (and at symbol works for me), because the username is not part of the language (I am not saying this for English, as it is not my native language, but I do think the same for my native language as well) and also it has a special function (like a URL), it is like using single or double quotes or italics (depending on the language) when using a foreign word in a text, or using url markup here or in other platforms.

For the correct usage, I do have unnecessary difficulty writing the nicknames. It is hard to remember (so I have to go back and check) if Nominal Animal has a space, how many 'z's tggzzz has, was it toki or tooki (I guess some would have difficulty with my username as well). So writing @Nomi and seeing Nominal Animal there is very quick and eliminates any mistake. I do not see autocomplete works here in this blog, if there are mentions, I would like to see this as well.

[Nominal Animal]

English is not my first language, and I have not stayed in an English speaking country more than a month, so probably I misunderstand the point here.

Ah.  Me fail English often too.  My native language is Finnish.

The key is that when you refer to another member, it is okay to use their name in the text.
When you refer to what that member has written, you must quote them exactly.

Because a person is not their opinion or output –– those are what they have and do, not what or who they are –– the two cases where you can use their name without quoting them are basically

• When you direct a tangential question or statement to another member who is already participating in the discussion
  (If they are not, you send them a PM linking to the thread, with that tangential question or statement and a bit of context in the PM text; never just "could you take a look at [this thread]?")
  
  Example: (tggzzz: I hope this does not look like I'm putting words in your mouth!)
   
• When you refer to the member in general, and not to any specific statement, question, or post they have made; nor to your understanding of what they have expressed before or might express in the future.
  
  Example: I like the way David Hess helps beginners in the Beginner and Projects forums.  I wish I could be as concise and calm.

If it ever involves any kind of statement another member has made, it does need to be a quote.  Aspersions, hints, implying stuff is Not Okay, no matter how common in social media.  We're here for the underlying logic, reasoning and experience; and not to score personalities or see whose opinion is most popular.

Aesthetically, I do prefer to mark a username in a text (and at symbol works for me), because the username is not part of the language (I am not saying this for English, as it is not my native language, but I do think the same for my native language as well) and also it has a special function (like a URL), it is like using single or double quotes or italics (depending on the language) when using a foreign word in a text, or using url markup here or in other platforms.

Yeah, I can see how support for @ -mentions that turns them into links to the user profile page can be useful in the post editor, especially for those who have dyslexia.  I don't mind such mentions becoming a link to that member's profile page at all.  I don't like them, but because I can see how it could be useful for other members, I'd have to accept it.  (Just like I accept the animated emoticons, even though I find them distracting.  I can work around it.)

I only object to the automatic and unavoidable notification sent/delivered to the mentioned user, because that is the part I don't see any use for, and which actually bothers me, and which I claim is just social gamification.  I could be wrong, of course, but this is my current opinion based on what I have observed thus far, and how an "evil version of me" (with a goatee) might misuse the mechanism just to annoy others and to try to get others to focus on me.

I've already prepared, so that if they do become common enough to bother me, I can always use an extension in my browser to edit the notification out so I'll simply never see them.  I already have to do that for most ads here, which I do not like to do, because it can affect Dave's income (a tiny bit, but nevertheless).

I do believe the possible downsides –– misuse by newbies, and misuse by trolls who use the mention mechanism to ensure the targets of their snide remarks will see them, hopefully before the moderators have time to react and remove the post –– are vastly greater than any upsides.

[tggzzz]

We're here for the underlying logic, reasoning and experience; and not to score personalities or see whose opinion is most popular.
...
I do believe the possible downsides –– misuse by newbies, and misuse by trolls who use the mention mechanism to ensure the targets of their snide remarks will see them, hopefully before the moderators have time to react and remove the post –– are vastly greater than any upsides.

As you say, this isn't social media.

[soldar]

I wonder if it's possible to implement this, with the facility for users to opt out, so they can prevent others tagging them?

I like in other forums where when I log in or open the main page the first thing I see at a glance is (1) unread private messages, (2) tags and (3) quotes. That way I can direct my attention first to these things. They are all there very visible.



I find tags very useful, for example, newbie comes and asks about topic X, he gets an answer or two but someone tags the resident expert on the topic so his attention is called to the thread. Of course he can just ignore the call if he so wishes.

And, just to reiterate, I also find the mouse over feature very useful.

[ebastler]

A tagging mechanism already exists on this forum; it is called "mentioning". It seems that every member can be "mentioned" and will get notified, but only some accounts can create mentions. See this thread for some discussion on this.

The notification one gets when being "mentioned" is very unobtrusive. I have shown a partial screenshot here. I don't see the need for an opt-out mechanism; the little indicator is very easily ignored if you don't care about mentions.

Also, I don't see how this could be perceived as an addicitive, social-media-style mechanism. Nobody else sees your mention list; there's no scoreboard or anything like that. Personally, I certainly don't get an endorphine boost out of seeing that little "[1]" indicator.