Timeline for Tell the user who will be notified of a comment
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| S May 5, 2013 at 11:45 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S May 5, 2013 at 11:45 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Apr 27, 2013 at 10:20 | history | bounty started | Matt | ||
| S Apr 27, 2013 at 10:20 | history | notice added | Matt | Draw attention | |
| Sep 20, 2011 at 13:20 | history | edited | T.J. Crowder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 444 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2011 at 0:06 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 20, 2011 at 0:06 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: -9 | |
| Sep 18, 2011 at 17:57 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Sep 10, 2011 at 17:09 | answer | added | Lance Roberts | timeline score: 15 | |
| Sep 10, 2011 at 16:48 | history | edited | Lance Roberts |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 10, 2011 at 16:25 | history | bounty started | Lance Roberts | ||
| Sep 10, 2011 at 16:23 | history | edited | Lance Roberts |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 28, 2011 at 9:56 | answer | added | Jeff Atwood | timeline score: -6 | |
| Jul 27, 2011 at 13:34 | history | edited | T.J. Crowder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added proof of concept demonstrator script
|
| Jul 22, 2011 at 10:03 | comment | added | T.J. Crowder | @Lasse: Glad you like the idea! :-) Yes, I got notified of the above, because I'm the person who posted the item you're commenting on (the question, in this case). The postowner (person who posted the Q or A) always gets notified, it's automatic. My understanding is that the only other automatic notification is that if Joe comments on Nitin's post, and Nitin comments on it when no one else has, the system assumes the comment is aimed at Joe and notifies him. To notify anyone else, you have to call them out specifically. And yeah, I really like how this makes all that clear and up-front. | |
| Jul 22, 2011 at 9:59 | comment | added | Lasse V. Karlsen | Which in turn means that if we can't make the system behave like everyone expects it to, the more clarity the system brings is better because then we change what the users expect of the system instead. I like it! | |
| Jul 22, 2011 at 9:57 | comment | added | Lasse V. Karlsen | I guess my question was more about what happens now, not with the UI change that is proposed here. ie. if I type out this comment here now, will you be notified? And, if someone posts a comment in the meantime, will you be notified then? (with the current implementation that is.) Also, just to make sure you understand; I really like the proposed UI change, at the moment there seems to be quite a lot of hidden magic going on, and I feel really unsure about what happens when I post stuff now. The more certain our users are that the system behaves like they expect, the better. | |
| Jul 22, 2011 at 9:56 | comment | added | T.J. Crowder | @Lasse: In your specific example, barring your calling out the other person, of course only Jeff would be notified (being the postowner). But there are some edge cases that will need exploring, as with any enhancement. Someone commenting on their own post, for instance, when initially no one else had commented -- but someone does in the meantime, making it seem like a two-person conversation. In that case, though, I'd say the client-side determination (not notifying that person) would be correct, notifying the other person makes no sense if I didn't know they'd commented when writing mine. | |
| Jul 22, 2011 at 9:47 | comment | added | Lasse V. Karlsen | Does this detection work reliably if someone posts a comment while I am still typing mine? ie. I start typing my comment, believing it would go to Jeff, then someone else posts a comment in the meantime, will my comment be a reply to that comment, or go to Jeff? | |
| Jul 22, 2011 at 7:29 | history | edited | T.J. Crowder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:43 | history | edited | T.J. Crowder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 799 characters in body
|
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:12 | answer | added | Jason S | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:10 | comment | added | T.J. Crowder |
@Cody: Thanks, I didn't take it that way. @M. Tibbits: I was thinking it would be done client-side, not server-side. The logic for figuring out who to notify could be moved to the client and the list (of user IDs) included with the submission. (The server would, of course, check that the user IDs were active in the area, it just wouldn't need to duplicate the logic that makes @crowder and @T.J. both work.)
|
|
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:09 | comment | added | Cody Gray - on strike | Do note that I didn't mean that comment to sound like I was criticizing you in particular. You've been quite courteous throughout the entire process. It just becomes tiring to see people bang their heads against a wall. :-) I think this plan has the very desirable side effect of teaching users how to use the system. | |
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | McCannot | This is an excellent idea on its own merits, and would be an improvement no matter what is done with the name reference stuff. | |
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | T.J. Crowder | @Cody: Thanks. I'm only embarrassed not to have offered a suggestion before now. I plead overwork (just got off a massive deadline push). | |
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:06 | comment | added | Cody Gray - on strike | Definitely the most constructive post I've seen yet regarding this new feature. +1 for channeling your opinion into something productive rather than the slew of rants I was beginning to expect thanks to this change. (Plus, this even seems like it might be a good idea.) | |
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:03 | comment | added | genesis | You have great questions | |
| Jul 21, 2011 at 14:03 | comment | added | M. Tibbits | Brilliant suggestion TJ! -- Devs, would this change overburden the server with requests? | |
| Jul 21, 2011 at 13:58 | history | edited | T.J. Crowder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 25 characters in body
|
| Jul 21, 2011 at 13:51 | history | asked | T.J. Crowder | CC BY-SA 3.0 |