Don't remove the @ part of my comment

This change also makes it harder to teach by example. When a new user enters a site, I make sure to reply to them in the form "@newuser: What do you mean by X? Y or Z? (Use @Jan in your reply and I get a notification)" This teaches them right from the start how the commenting system works. I know that you also get a notification without an @lert when no one else joined the conversation (yet), but this is an exception to the rule, for all those new users that don't know the system yet. We should not make the exception more prominent.

"@postowner, you forgot to provide some information" is also a pretty natural sentence, so it's not that noisy. I would not object to removing it from the global inbox notifications, but please leave it in them comments themselves.

I agree.

• The system should minimize instances where it automatically modifies user input.
• If you feel that the system should automatically modify user input, it should allow the user to override. Not allowing the user to override is offensive. Let the user say what they want to say, and if it's a problem, address it by moderation.
• If there is no mechanism to allow the user to override the system, at the very least will you please make it provide visible feedback (1) that it is doing so intentionally, and (2) why it is doing so. Otherwise you not only have a system that is not only inflexible and offensive, but also extremely confusing.

...and if the sysadmins maintain this as status-declined, then what I'll do is stop using "@" signs, because it just causes annoyance, and I don't want the system automatically censoring my comments.

And just for kicks, let's compare these two possibilities.

Lorem ipsum, etc.

--Fooman

---

^{That doesn't look right. --Barman}

---

^{@Barman: Are you sure? --Fooman}

---

^{@Fooman: Yes, I am. See "Book of Lorem Ipsum" p. 302 --Barman}

---

^{@Barman: OK, if you insist. --Fooman}

or this:

Lorem ipsum, etc.

--Fooman

---

^{That doesn't look right. --Barman}

---

^{@Barman: Are you sure? --Fooman}

---

^{Yes, I am. See "Book of Lorem Ipsum" p. 302 --Barman}

---

^{@Barman: OK, if you insist. --Fooman}

The first of these is symmetric, the second is not. It is really strange, when someone writes a comment to you with your @username, to be completely unable to respond in kind, without any explanation by the system whatsoever why your use of @username is removed but the other guy's is not.

If some of you think this is excessively noisy, then let it be a client-side preference to remove the @name syntax. But don't change the source comment. If I want to make it clear who I'm talking to, let me do it.

Why must the classification of signal or noise be binary? Redundant addressing might legitimately fall between the two. Even if you do consider it noise, it is the most easily ignored noise possible, always in the same place with the same format.

I believe the downsides of this feature outweigh the upsides.

Edit: I believe the proper categorization of the @ tag is not pure signal or noise, but redundant signal. A redundant signal may be removed without changing the meaning of the message, by definition. However you will find that human speech is full of redundancy, because it enhances communication and improves understanding. I would argue for its retention in this case.

(This is coming at it from a different perspective, so I'm posting an answer rather than editing the question yet again.)

I think most if not all of the SE sites have the same statement Stack Overflow does: "We don’t run Stack Overflow. The community does."

At this point, some days after this started, more than seven eight nine ten times as many people expressing an opinion want the change reverted as want to keep it. That's a landslide in any voting system. Even if Jeff were right and everyone else were wrong, it would be wrong to persist with it in the face of this kind of community reaction.

The Stack Exchange sites are not a democracy. One person has the ability and in some cases the duty to override the community. This is the reality of the Stack Exchange sites and pretty much every other site on the 'net. These are Jeff's sites. He's better than most people in his position about giving power to the community, but if you thought this was a collaborative venture, if you thought you were a partner in the process, you were mistaken. Your suggestions may be taken on board, or they may be disregarded and your post expressing them deleted, or locked for months on end preventing you even replying with a comment. Maybe it's possible to have a truly community-run site, but I've never seen one. There are going to be occasions when that one, finally-responsible person has to override the community's will.

But in a place that purports to respect the community, put it first, let it run the show, that one person needs to pick his occasions with extreme care. It's not that this change isn't in the same ballpark as something worth rejecting the community over, it's not even in the same country.

"We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does..."

Those are easy words when you agree with the community, or just mildly disagree. The real test is when you strongly disagree. Persisting with this kind of change in the face of this kind of opposition to it demonstrates tremendous disrespect for the community and puts the lie to those words.

Let's not go there. Instead, say "The community is wrong. I'm right. But even so, I am going to accept the community's decision on this."

I know all has been said. I know I cannot upvote twice. Maybe a picture helps. Below, @ajax333221 was removed, and also that original author is not listed as this a community wiki post:

That bothers me a lot.

I am a mathematics professor who has been very active on both Math Overflow and the newer math.SE. The help that I give to others on the site is often on the professional level: indeed, a substantial proportion of the hundreds of questions I have answered on that site have required my expertise as a post-PhD mathematician. Nor has it been one-sided, not at all: there are many other research mathematicians active on the site, including some of the very top ones in the world. When I talk on this site I talk carefully, and when I listen I listen carefully: there is a lot to learn.

Let us call this latest practice what is is: a form of censorship. As an academic behaving in a de facto professional capacity, my reaction to my writing being censored is what you would expect: a mixture of bemusement, bewilderment and outrage. Certain people and organizations have historically had the right to censor, including academic writing. For the last 100 hundred years or so in the Western world, those who have exercised this right have, usually, given very careful thought to make sure that their reasons for censoring are compelling and necessary. The exceptions to this rule have become infamous and long remembered.

Many people here have remarked that the reasons given for this censorship are very far from compelling. In fact it seems to me that they are not reasons at all but rather quickly boil down to I am the boss, so I can make whatever changes will, in my opinion, improve the site. This is true, but as a justification for censorship in a de facto academic environment? Wow. This is going to be negatively remembered by a lot of people for a long time.

Postscript: Some people have said that the SE sites are "wikis" which means that users should expect that others can and will edit their writing. This is technically true, I suppose, but misses the mark in a lot of ways. First, the SE sites are not like wikipedia (in which I have been active) since on the latter site all users enter with essentially full editorial privileges, whereas on SE these privileges are carefully graduated as the user becomes more experienced and "trusted". Second, on math.SE at least, edits to others' questions beyond the level of spelling, formatting and punctuation are done very sparingly: for instance, when I spot what I am convinced is a mathematical error in someone else's answer I do not edit it but rather leave a comment and wait for the answerer to respond. This is respectful and ultimately more efficient -- in most cases the answerer and I (possibly with the help of other commenters) quickly come to an understanding. When people do edit each others' posts even in rather minor ways they often leave comments saying "I changed X; I hope that is okay with you." If some user repeatedly made stylistic changes in others' answers without telling them, the community would quickly intervene to put a stop to it. Third, these edits are edits to the comments, which are strongly linked to a particular person. An analogous change on a wiki would be to make edits in others' signed comments on a discussion page, which everyone has the ability to do and in all my experience on wikipedia no one was stupid enough to attempt. Fourth, these edits are done automatically and without (public, at least) record: if I edit someone else's answer then -- although it rarely comes to this -- they can simply roll it back: the record of the original is preserved. Here the original writing is being altered irrevocably and without even alerting the writer that this is taking place. Thus it is censorship of a rather craven variety, the kind that the censors hope will not be noticed. (But we have noticed it, of course, to say the least.)

I agree with T.J. on this and will add my own additional reason why this disturbs me: because this means that SO (but really Jeff) is exerting editorial control over the style of what I wrote. If there is something offensive (or such) in my content, I accept that is the responsibility and duty of the moderator.

But when you alter the nature of what I write, simply because you don't like it -- and let us face it, this is what it boils down to. Because I don't think you can point to an objective measure of what constitutes noise and what doesn't. It is based on what you prefer.

And look, it is great to have a coherent vision, it is what shapes the greatest products, and I expect you do it in what you write and how you present SO; however when it extends into editorial control over MY style, that crosses a line with me.

I wasn't entirely joking when I suggested your filters might remove (or add) oxford comma's next. While it seems silly it is hard to see a consistant philosophy that says it is OK to remove greetings (a verbal lubricant that dates back to the mists of time), but not something like the Oxford comma.

Addendum: I am not -- in chicken little like way -- trying to say that the sky is falling and SO is editing for content willy-nilly. What I am trying to say is that "clutter" is a deeply deeply subjective thing; and Jeff hasn't even attempted to explain why greetings and @postowner are clutter. He has simply asserted that they are.

And I do not feel it is appropriate to edit other peoples words for style.

Update: And this is it, my final words on this matter -- and possibly my final contribution to SO:

It seems to be there are such bigger forms of noise to address on this site, than to make an arbitrary decision, for an arbitrary definition of noise (because I still haven't seen you give an objective definition of what counts as noise), and enforce it by fiat over the protestations of the community with nothing more than an assertion that you are right.

You insisted that the redundant "@postowner" should be removed because it is noise, and then say that a simple "postowner," is not. This simply makes no sense. It seems like you are acting like that @ convention started with SO and has a single universal understanding of its purpose and meaning. But it didn't start here. It started on other bulletin boards, and forums, and places like twitter; with the purpose of indicating who you are talking to.

I will reiterate what I said in a comment below: I simply do not believe people enter @postowner with a thought in their mind that it will notify the post owner. They do it to indicate who they are talking to. So in that sense their intention is exactly the same as "postowner,".

I think SO has a bigger problem. More than once I have heard colleagues make the comment that they don't participate in SO because they don't like the community. That they feel it is filled with blunt arrogant responses, and that it doesn't feel welcoming. So they reap the benefits of SO without contributing.

Actions like this one, and removing salutations and thanks, take out the kind of vital social lubricant needed to make SO feel less clinical and more collegial. Each time turning SO into a place for people like @sixlettervariables (I am not picking on you sir, but you expressed your opinions rather definitively, and thus make a good example), and less for people like me.

My example is anecdotal, so I cannot say how large it is, but I urge you to take it seriously. Because if you want So to grow, and thrive in the future, then THIS is the kind of signal v. noise you would be worrying about. The one that gets more people to be active and contributing.

All this experience in contributing has done for me is convince me you flaunt precedent (the use of @postowner on other sites, ignoring the social niceties that help make us more individual and relatable, and how links are styled; to name a few), in favor of views you feel are right, but simply cannot prove. Contributing hasn't been a positive experience for me, and it just makes be want to go back to my previous leach status. Which is what I am likely to do.

Look at the votes on your own answer in this matter. Clearly there are more than a few people who disagree with you on this, but you refuse to acknowledge this this with any kind of meaningful response on this, or respond with any kind of citation that shows that removing @postowner, greetings, or thanks has any meaningful affect on the readability and comprehension of conversations here (because ultimately that is what Signal v Noise is about).

I am simply right about this...

Just a reminder of how this came to be (old timers please correct me if I'm wrong).

In the beginning, there were no comments at all, but when comments were implemented, people intuitively started @ing each other. They also had to F5 like crazy to check for answers, since only the post's author was notified of comments.

Then came notifications, the envelope, the SuperCollider. By popular request (and not without some resistance, IIRC) @ comments were added to notifications.

But people kept forgetting to add @, and complained that it was redundant anyway for a first comment. So notifications were tweaked such that if only one person besides the post's author had commented, he would be notified of new comments as well.

The change that is the subject of this discussion was the 'logical' next step: remove redundant @ when only two people (post author and someone else) were commenting, since both of them get notified anyway.

So what?

Mostly, what I want to emphasise (other people have called this out in comments here), is that originally (at least), using @ wasn't about notifications, it was about indicating who the comment was addressed to. In other words, I think that a valid use case is a 'general' comment on a post which isn't directly addressed to the author, but to all readers. The fact that the author will be notified is not directly relevant in this case.

If the system auto-notifies the post owner, great, but removing @postowner from comments is another matter.

This is messing with the contextual clues we get while reading through comments, and the resulting inconsistencies are subtle and manifold.

Here are examples of just two issues that—even without any of the others—should be sufficient to demonstrate that the feature should be reversed:

• Like many online communities, ours is made up of individuals with an unlimited variety of made-up names. Many of these names are words that are in common use in the English language. This means that even assuming I remember to type "postowner" instead of "@postowner", thereby ensuring the system will post what I've typed, this is all very well when I'm addressing user Joe, but confusion may arise when I'm addressing user Agree or user Cobblers.

• The first point is exacerbated when a post already has several comments, meaning the foot of the post bearing the poster's name may not be visible at the same time as my comment. Worse, just as I post my comment, another user posts a comment that arrives before mine. The resulting impression is that my comment, lacking as it does its @postowner text (and possibly starting "Agree" or "Cobblers") is a reply to that last comment, when it is in fact a reply to the post owner's last comment.

One could argue that removing parts of my comment without a clear notice is a violation of the CC 4.0 license from SE's part. Unlike previous versions of the license, marking modifications is mandatory in 4.0: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Modifications_and_adaptations_must_be_marked_as_such .