How to tag someone in a post?

[tautech]

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

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]

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.

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).

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?  )

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 discounted

Hence 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]

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.

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.)

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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]

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?  )

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).

[tggzzz]

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.

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.)

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?  )

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).

"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).

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.

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.

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.

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!

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).

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]

That isn't a commonly understood definition of "thanking"

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.

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

Et tu, Brutus.

[tggzzz]

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

That isn't a commonly understood definition of "thanking"

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".

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

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

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.

[tggzzz]

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. 

Mentions can't reliably attract a specific user's attention to a topic, unless they plonk themselves in that user's face.

Quoting+editing a specific reply is unambiguous, and only very slightly slower than mentioning. That minor delay is a benefit, since it allows for thought and consideration (although the FarceBook/Twatter generation might not realise that). The ambiguity of mentions is an unnecessary disadvantage.

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.

So long as mentions aren't used, there's no need to make any changes. KISS.

[Ian.M]

Quoting+editing a specific reply is unambiguous, and only very slightly slower than mentioning.

Editing quotes for relevance is easy enough on a PC or decent sized tablet paired to a keyboard, but much harder for mobile and touchscreen users.

So long as mentions aren't used, there's no need to make any changes. KISS.

The problem is: Mentions *ARE* used, but formerly had no effect (or at least for most users had no effect).   Do you propose to ban users for typing "@<username>"?

[Ranayna]

I have only read parts of this thread, but seeing this topic i feel compelled to mention XenForo again

Because that has a mention and notification system which i came to like very much in another forum where i am quite active. The system helps me to keep better track.
And imporant for many folks here: The notifications are highly customizable. You can turn them off completly, you can turn them off for citations, for mentions, or for "watched" threads.

[tggzzz]

Quoting+editing a specific reply is unambiguous, and only very slightly slower than mentioning.

Editing quotes for relevance is easy enough on a PC or decent sized tablet paired to a keyboard, but much harder for mobile and touchscreen users.

I was waiting for the  "I have crap inappropriate equipment[1] that makes life difficult for me, so I want shiny features that make life difficult/unpleasant for you" contention.

I've been on the receiving end of that before, elsewhere. I left, because the tone/atmosphere changed by becoming too unpleasant.

I will fight against that happening here.

[1] tablets and smartphones are OK for consuming content, but crap for creating any subtle content beyond mere one-line chit-chat.

So long as mentions aren't used, there's no need to make any changes. KISS.

The problem is: Mentions *ARE* used, but formerly had no effect (or at least for most users had no effect).   Do you propose to ban users for typing "@<username>"?

Bans are impractical and unpleasant. Dissuading people is more pleasant and, hopefully, sufficiently successful.

[PlainName]

Do you propose to ban users for typing "@<username>"?

Yeah! Clearly Farcebook and (sorry, can't think of a derogatory version of X) users outing themselves. Ban hammer's too good for them 

[tggzzz]

(sorry, can't think of a derogatory version of X)

Twatter is good enough, and everybody knows what that means. Similarly every electronic engineer knows that HP is now called Agilent Keysight.

[tautech]

I have only read parts of this thread, but seeing this topic i feel compelled to mention XenForo again

Because that has a mention and notification system which i came to like very much in another forum where i am quite active. The system helps me to keep better track.
And imporant for many folks here: The notifications are highly customizable. You can turn them off completly, you can turn them off for citations, for mentions, or for "watched" threads.

Hell no.
While the UI is in some ways better than SMF it fails to properly link old threads you have been active in.

SMF is far far better in this regard.

[Ranayna]

I have only read parts of this thread, but seeing this topic i feel compelled to mention XenForo again

Because that has a mention and notification system which i came to like very much in another forum where i am quite active. The system helps me to keep better track.
And imporant for many folks here: The notifications are highly customizable. You can turn them off completly, you can turn them off for citations, for mentions, or for "watched" threads.

Hell no.
While the UI is in some ways better than SMF it fails to properly link old threads you have been active in.

SMF is far far better in this regard.

I have not seen that happen in the forum i am active in. I've been active there for more that 5 years now.
Or are you refering to the fact that visting old threads you have read partially at some point, instead of bringing you to where you left, it will open them on page one?
As far as i understood the technical admin there, this can be changed in the backend. They set it to 60 days IIRC, but they are a lot larger than the eevblog forum and want to keep the database size in check. But even then: If i get a notification that someone has posted in an old thread, clicking the notification always brings me to the correct post.

[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?

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

Of course there's no way to stop that. Indeed I just did that in my previous post, although it took a little longer. Opting out of notifications is obviously what I meant. I don't see why anyone would complain if they can switch notifications about being tagged off.

[PlainName]

I don't see why anyone would complain if they can switch notifications about being tagged off.

Ah, glasshopper, you must be new here

[tautech]

I have only read parts of this thread, but seeing this topic i feel compelled to mention XenForo again

Because that has a mention and notification system which i came to like very much in another forum where i am quite active. The system helps me to keep better track.
And imporant for many folks here: The notifications are highly customizable. You can turn them off completly, you can turn them off for citations, for mentions, or for "watched" threads.

Hell no.
While the UI is in some ways better than SMF it fails to properly link old threads you have been active in.

SMF is far far better in this regard.

I have not seen that happen in the forum i am active in. I've been active there for more that 5 years now.
Or are you refering to the fact that visting old threads you have read partially at some point, instead of bringing you to where you left, it will open them on page one?
As far as i understood the technical admin there, this can be changed in the backend. They set it to 60 days IIRC, but they are a lot larger than the eevblog forum and want to keep the database size in check. But even then: If i get a notification that someone has posted in an old thread, clicking the notification always brings me to the correct post.

Old threads one has posted that have reappeared near the top of a board/forum where a click on the subject doesn't take you to the last post you've read.

SMF gets this right whereas XenForo doesn't.
https://forum.accurateshooter.com/

[tggzzz]

I don't see why anyone would complain if they can switch notifications about being tagged off.

Because it allows/encourages a lower standard of discpurse, as I have noted (in no order)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-to-tag-someone-in-a-post/msg5363234/#msg5363234
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-to-tag-someone-in-a-post/msg5353361/#msg5353361
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-to-tag-someone-in-a-post/msg5363843/#msg5363843
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-to-tag-someone-in-a-post/msg5359802/#msg5359802
and others have noted from their viewpoint.

[Ranayna]

Old threads one has posted that have reappeared near the top of a board/forum where a click on the subject doesn't take you to the last post you've read.

SMF gets this right whereas XenForo doesn't.
https://forum.accurateshooter.com/

Ok, yes, that is what i meant as well.

https://xenforo.com/community/threads/read-marking-data-lifetime-days-whats-yours-set-to.58856
This can be changed, but supposedly bloats the database if set to a too long timer. No idea why it would bloat XenForo more than SMF, but i would assume this also depends very much on the size of the comunity and the server how noticable this would be.

[T3sl4co1l]

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

[tggzzz]

...
Anyway, back to mentions -- in this case, it's a link to a post;

Er no. A mention is a link to a person, not to a post.

Explicit links to posts (and parts of posts) is normal and good.

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.).

You are someone who writes more interesting, sensible, and helpful posts than many on this forum. Hence you would be more likely to be the "target" of mentions than many people.

I would expect that "Hey, guru. Gimme an answer" and "Hey friend. I saw this and thought of you" and "Please think about this" would become tedious after a (short?) while.