![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zvi) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2011-05-28 10:46 pm
Direct Message re: This Entry
Title:
Direct Message re: This Entry
Area:
Messages, Entries, Comments
Summary:
Allow people to send a direct message re: an entry instead of commenting on it
Description:
"As it currently stands, comment screening is used for two very different purposes. It's used to allow the journal owner to check over comments before they are visible, and it's used to make private comments that are never intended to be seen by anyone other than the journal owner. I propose that this functionality be split in two." -rho
The reason that a number of commenters favor allowing commenters to screen entries and/or to split up the comment function into entry discussion and sending a private message is that sending a direct message requires a commenter to (a) go to a separate page and (b) invoke the entry to which they are responding.
I propose that, instead, we permit someone to respond to an entry in the form of a comment, but then, with a tickybox, "send comment as direct message instead", send the OP a direct message whose subject line is the entry being commented upon, in the format
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: example.dreamwidth.org/12345.html where you wrote:
[first 250 characters of entry]
example commenter responded:
[a message they want to send the OP but not anyone else]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This will allow people to have the direct communication they want in a format where the OP can't inadvertently reveal their direct communication to the other people reading the entry, and it won't require them to go to any other pages or summarize the entry, as this will be done automatically.
The drawback, from the journal owner's point of view, is that discussion will be disaggregated. I am not particularly concerned about this, as people always had the option of sending the OP a direct message or an e-mail or making an entry in their own journal in response.
The big drawback from the direct message sender's point of view is that the OP may allow people to make comments who are not allowed to send direct message's.
In this case, I suggest we degrade gracefully and say, "You do not have permission to post the message below"
[text box with the commenter's message, so that they can copy it or send an e-mail or whatever they need]
[button: comment on the entry] [button: cancel sending message] [link: return to entry]
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
29 (43.3%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
8 (11.9%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
6 (9.0%)
(I have no opinion)
21 (31.3%)
(Other: please comment)
3 (4.5%)
no subject
no subject
no subject
+1
no subject
no subject
no subject
1) the option weren't shown if the journal owner has disabled all use of direct messages
2) if possible, the option weren't shown if the journal owner doesn't allow direct messages from that person (but this may not be achievable - only if it is within reasonable technical difficulty)
3) it's possible to turn this on/off per post and journal wide, as with commenting.
no subject
no subject
The ability to turn *on* PM's as responses to a specific post without making them generally available would be useful.
no subject
no subject
Maybe it could work on security settings one doesn't normally allow, like letting anon people comment, but banned people still couldn't.
no subject
Someone for whom it's an acceptable mode (like me) could just turn it on. Someone who loathes PMs could turn those off and vanish the option. But someone who welcomes PMs from friends about random stuff, but wants responses to posts IN the post, would be in a catch 22 without the ability to turn this option off.
Without this option, as has been proven by the request for it and some other discussions, most people won't bother to dig up the PM link and send it.
no subject
Still, as someone who doesn't generally block contact from anyone, I admit that those pros and cons should be hashed out by people whose usage would actually be affected by it.
no subject
Now, I might be all right with a "contact me privately about this entry" option that emails me ... one can set up a fairly complex mailto: link, after all...
Which suggests a two-layer setting: one, would the owner welcome private contact enough to make it easy, and two, how would the owner prefer the private contact?
Also, who should contact makes a third layer: there are a decent number of things that I don't mind getting into with close friends, but there are more distant friends, friendly acquaintances, and random passers-by with whom I'm not comfortable explaining all of my brain in detail, and it's sometimes inevitable that when one makes an entry with slightly cryptic references that people who have already been told will recognize, and people who have not been told shouldn't be able to extract the information from, that the people who have not been told to whom one least relishes the idea of explaining will be the ones to notice a cryptic reference that they cannot decipher, and ask about it. And when one stacks together "not that close to this person", "don't really want to explain this thing to someone not that close", possibly "I thought it was obvious from context that I wasn't going to explain it to someone who didn't already know", and "I really don't much care for this communication method", that's an excellent recipe for screaming annoyance. (I doubt a bartender would try to mix that for someone, however.)
no subject
I bet it would taste like tasty, tasty hatred.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I would also never use this function. I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to pm me instead of keeping a discussion in context, and I wouldn't want pms to autoquote a huge block of text, and when reading old entries, I doubt I'd remember whether a private message conversation were had and go search for it in my inbox.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I hate PMs with a deep and burning passion because they are removed from the immediate context of my posts. I want comments on my posts to be right there on my posts, and if the communication isn't connected to a post at all, then I'd infinitely rather receive an IM or a direct email instead.
That being said, I think it's a good idea for people who do like PMs to have the option of receiving them with a reference to the specific post or comment in question. I also agree with
no subject
no subject
I'm not convinced that a tickbox on the comment form is the best implementation, because it's too easy to incorrectly set the tick and expose in public what the poster thought was a private message. A distinct link on the post, a different screen, different functionality at the backend may help to prevent this problem.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Why? First 250 chars should be enough to give context on the post, but the entire post, given how large they can be, would be a lot of scrolling, and for me checking my email regularly on my bandwidth limited phone, I'd rather not have the entire thing sent every time (I'd actually like to turn it off for email notifications actually, a bit of context is all I need, ought to suggest that).
So why do you think it should have the whole thing? I can see reasons against, but not really reasons for.
no subject
Being able to trim the quote like an email, or for the receiver to have an option to truncate or disable it, would be a Good Thing.
no subject