Conversation:
Notices
-
@cyberczar Can you (you're not the only one so don't take it personally) please stop mentioning the #GNUsocial group wiht a bangtag in all the posts of that thread about blocking full instances?
It keeps bumping up in my home timeline and I don't really think that every new post there carries enough weight in the discussion to bump up it up ;)
-
^- Please read the above, @cyberczar :)
-
@cyberczar Your replies will only go back to the person you reply to (in most recent versions of GNU social it should end up at all the recipients of the sub-thread you're writing to, but not necessarily in their home timeline). Throwing everything explicitly back to the group would make the conversations complete, but as I mentioned it does have the sideeffect of bump…
-
@cyberczar oh and of course also your replies go back to the people who subscribe to you as well, but that's pretty obvious.
-
@cyberczar I disagree! The explicit point of the bangtag is to put stuff into the home timeline (and thus bump up the thread) of members in a group with a collective interest. And having wildly different behaviour is counterproductive, consider: "weell, this is a post that belongs to a thread already part of a conversation in group A so I shouldn't bump it up, but mayb…
-
(@cyberczar But yes, incomplete conversations can be considered a bug, what I was disagreeing with was that the "natural UX" would be to bangtag stuff just to force everyone to get the full conversation... What I want to say is: If I'm not interested in what a certain person says I probably don't want to have their posts in the conversation when they suddenly stray off…
-
@cyberczar As mentioned, I agree that your reply _should_ show up in the full conversation context, at least on the group instance's timeline for the group. But unless you can recommend a strict ruleset that would allow me to receive content to my homeline using the method you described, without having to get it bumped up for _every_ new post (from people I don't other…