![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
starwatcher) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2010-07-23 07:47 pm
Notify if user does not receive copies of Private Messages in their email.
Title:
Notify if user does not receive copies of Private Messages in their email.
Area:
Profile page and private messaging
Summary:
A note that "this user does not receive emails of private messages" - or something like that - would allow other users to seek another method of contact.
Description:
On our profile page is a handy little link for another user to click and send a Private Message.
But some users are more savvy about using services / setting up their studios than others. Recently, a friend discovered that they'd never enabled delivery of private messages to their email address... and they did not know to check their inbox. When they discovered this oversight, some waiting messages were over a year old.
The setup to manage notifications looks pretty self-explanatory to me; I don't think you can improve it. BUT, if someone has NOT enabled email delivery of Private Messages - whether deliberately or through oversight - it would be useful to have an automatic 'warning' appear under the Private Message link. I'm thinking of something like, "This user does not receive emails of Private Messages."
This would serve two purposes:
1] Alert those who want to contact the user that another method might be more effective.
2] Alert the user (when they visit their profile page) that they need to change 'something' in order to receive PMs via email.
I don't suppose this is a major problem, but it affects how we socialize with other people. When we send a message, how long do we wait before pressing for an answer? If we're patient, did the intended recipient actually SEE the message? If we take another route to send a message (email, comment on post) after a few days, are we pushing someone who's already bogged down with more important issues? In this specific case, the user who discovered the mistake had months-old supportive messages; they were mortified that they hadn't answered the senders.
I can't think of any drawbacks; it seems a simple notification of the state of a particular DW studio, no different from the profile page showing who is subscribed or has access to who.
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
6 (13.6%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
2 (4.5%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
31 (70.5%)
(I have no opinion)
4 (9.1%)
(Other: please comment)
1 (2.3%)
no subject
no subject
I may have used the wrong terminology. I didn't mean 'alert' as in a popup message that "you have not enabled Private Messages by email", but just 'alert' as in, they see that line under the 'Private Message' link. It would have to stay there for other people to be aware of non-delivery, but needn't be any more obtrusive than your birthdate posted: easy to ignore if the user doesn't want to do anything about it.
.
no subject
If the problem is that people don't understand that the notification settings are there or how to use them, then provide better documentation.
no subject
no subject
I honestly don't see how another user knowing that, "This user doesn't receive emails of Private Messages" is intrusive. There is no need that we show our email addies on our profile page; all this does is confirm that this user wishes to remain unreachable.
If the problem is that people don't understand that the notification settings are there or how to use them, then provide better documentation.
Maybe someone could suggest a better / easier setup for that part, but it looks pretty clear to me. The problem is, we all have to start somewhere; some new users are so clueless they don't even know what to ask, to learn what they don't know. There's no way to insist that a new user meet a certain standard of knowledge / competence before they start a DW account.
.
no subject
Suppose on the other hand I do have them sent to my e-mail, and I get a PM that I ignore, either because that's the best way to handle it, because I don't think the sender wanted a response, or because I forgot about it. Now the sender knows I got an e-mail with their PM, and may send more until I acknowledge them.
It's the same setup as if Dwth were to show whether someone got comment notifications for every comment left on their own entries. If someone leaves me a comment on a post a year old, perhaps I want to let them assume that I never saw it.
no subject
no subject
Ah, now I understand where you're coming from.
The only solution I can think of is for the warning scheduled to show unless the user turns it off... but I don't like the idea of "need to opt-out" if the user doesn't want it. Maybe someone else can hit on a better plan.
.
no subject
It's hard for me to explain why it feels intrusive, but it does. I guess partly because almost all my other DW settings are private unless I explicitly choose to make them public. But if this setting were opt-in, it wouldn't do what you want it to.
all this does is confirm that this user wishes to remain unreachable.
No, it doesn't. It tells you that the person hasn't set the setting, but it doesn't tell you anything about the person's wishes or whether they saw your message. The person might regularly check their DW inbox, in which case they would see the message even if it's not e-mailed. The person might not be receiving their email for one reason or another, in which case they won't see the message even if it is emailed. So it just pushes the question "Did this person see my message?" out one layer, it doesn't answer the question.
I would support a setting that specifies which users (e.g., "everyone," "access list only," "no one") can send you PMs. LJ has such a setting and apparently notifies you if you try to send a PM to someone who doesn't allow it. If this were opt-in, then it would in fact confirm the user wishes to remain unreachable.
no subject
You - and the others - have shown me aspects I was missing. Thank you.
I would support a setting that specifies which users (e.g., "everyone," "access list only," "no one") can send you PMs.
Good idea. Seeing that spelled out, would probably draw attention to the setting, make it less likely to be overlooked. Some things are easy for a newbie to miss, but we can't take each by the hand individually.
.
no subject
So does DW! It's on the Manage Profile page.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I would support at least discussion of a modification of the message count that is displayed in the navbar and in the header of site-schemed pages to include the number of unread notifications that did not have an email notification. Although I could see this getting hairy.
no subject
I think the fix for this needs to be on the PM reciever's end, with making sure users know about the possibility of PMs (and maybe make it possible to disable them) rather than on the sender's end, but I'm really not sure how DW can make the existence of PMs more apparent. Maybe turn the emails on by default, if they aren't already?
no subject
I think I'm missing something. I don't see how the 'fix' can be on the sender's end; either PM goes to email or it doesn't, and the sender has no way of knowing.
I like
.
no subject
SO the problem to solve is to make sure people know that they may have a PM.
The reason I don't think adding a new setting can help is that, like you mentioned, a new user wouldn't necessarily realize what the settings do, and wouldn't necessarily remember later - there's already the email setting for PMs, and clearly that isn't enough.
(I think it would be nice to have a setting for who you can get PMs from, but I think that's a completely separate issue that wouldn't fix the problem of people not knowing they can get PMs at all. Unless you set "no PMs from anyone" as the default, and that would probably be a bad idea.)
no subject
...clearly, we need to duplicate it on the Privacy tab or something.
no subject
no subject
+1
no subject
Once a message is sent you just don't know whether the other got it before they react, unless you pick a confirmation option (akin to registered mail). There just is not guarantee, when someone speaks onto a mailbox they don't know how often people check or whether they just delete everything either. It's unfortunate when you miss the setup options for PMs and miss to adjust them for your convenience, but that's not fixed through telling everyone whether you get them mailed or not.
no subject
no subject
I think it has to be on the receiver's end - I wouldn't be against the idea of having a pop up ONCE when you log in for the first time telling you that. It happened to me yesterday on LJ actually, I set up a new account and forgot about turning the email notifications on so it took all day for me to get back to someone.
no subject
no subject
A message with the underlying meaning warning, your message probably won't reach this person would be useful.
But the reality is some users barely check their emails and can be reached more reliably by PM; others use both; others might never check their inbox and use email exclusively. I swing between the three depending on how busy I am.
Giving the sender of a PM this information would be a violation of privacy - not a dangerous one, but it's still information some random stranger isn't entitled to.
no subject
no subject