Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Meta
posted by on Tuesday February 16 2016, @06:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the message-for-you-sir dept.

It's a slow news day so far, so it's time to talk about user to user messaging. There are two main questions I see here that we need to answer as a community:

  1. Do we even want user to user messaging?
  2. Should we use the existing messaging system or fire up an xmpp server or what?

The first is pretty self-explanatory. I've heard arguments for both sides. Yeah, it's convenient but it could also cut down on comment participation if you can just message someone directly.

The second is a little more open. The pros for web-based messaging on the site are it will take almost zero work since we already have a system in place for sending messages. The cons include it could take up to five minutes for a message to be delivered (this can be tweaked but not really made instant) because we only process the message queue that often and not being able to use your instant messenger of choice. I know AJAX is likely to come up for this in particular but we'll be needing a proper AJAX dev before we go down that road.

For XMPP the cons include not being able to have spaces in names so we'd have to keep a mapping of usernames in the db and check that there are no nick collisions before allowing creation of that XMPP account. The pros being instant delivery plus you could use any XMPP-friendly instant messenger and do voice/video chat as well if you like.

I know we're going to get a lot of tangents going here but please do try to answer both questions as well.

takyon: How does IRC (which includes private messages) stack up against these options?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:05PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:05PM (#305288)

    The first question, you mean, want u2u messaging here (as opposed to IRC or gnusocial or ...) and you probably mean private messaging as journals are already sorta in between sorta less public messaging.

    The second question is how about that gnusocial. Aside from u2u messaging it could be used federated story announcements or something. A really weird idea would be a bidirectional comment gateway between gnusocial and SN. Good luck with that.

    At this time I don't anticipate using it, although maybe someone has an amazing idea that would work with this but not under existing IRC, so I look forward to discussion.

    From a site perspective is traffic too high or participation too high such that sharding traffic off on other services is necessary technically or economically or culturally?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:07PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:07PM (#305291) Journal

    1: Not seeing an incredibly compelling use-case, personally, but if others are clamoring for it...

    2: One thing that would guarantee that I don't use it would be to require installing a 3rd party client.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:54PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:54PM (#305337) Homepage Journal

      I'm not seeing any serious clamoring yet but it's only been asked for about an hour and I've heard it brought up a few times before. Thus the interest gauging post.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:17PM

        by edIII (791) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:17PM (#305495)

        I have an interest in asking the editors a question, but there is email for that. I figure if anyone really wants to chat or talk, they can take it the IRC channel here. Private conversations are quite easy in IRC.

        Why do we need instant messaging otherwise? I've never used IRC, but I'm logged in. Took all of 20 seconds. I can start yelling at you now.

        Hold on :)

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:32PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:32PM (#305374) Journal

      agree with deathmonkey

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by SunTzuWarmaster on Wednesday February 17 2016, @02:08AM

      by SunTzuWarmaster (3971) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @02:08AM (#305560)
      I would occasionally REALLY like to be able to message users and have a discussion (via E-mail, offline, etc.). I have offered jobs this way and have had insightful discussions this way. IRC is NOT ENOUGH for this. Twitter (for all its bullshit) actually is. A short "one way" message ("I am intrigued in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, where can I subscribe? My E-mail is XXX") is enough.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:12PM

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:12PM (#305294)

    Seems unnecessary to me since we already have user journal pages with comments, IRC, and e-mail. If someone isn't reachable via those they probably don't want to be. Would development time not be better spent elsewhere?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:20PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:20PM (#305302) Journal

      Well I imagine the editor-to-user messaging could be expanded to user-to-user messaging very quickly. Barebones but already in place.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:19PM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:19PM (#305364) Journal

      User journal pages with comments and IRC are public channels, as in everyone can read them. Also, I'd like to keep my SN identity separate, therefore I'll not publish my email address here. However I'd not mind getting messages, as long as I have the ability to block messages from people if they get annoying. A simple method would be a setting hooking into the friends/foes system, with the settings "receive no messages", "receive messages only from friends", "receive messages from non-foes" and "receive messages from all registered users".

      If the default would be "receive no messages", then it should also satisfy those who don't want to receive messages, as you would have to actively change a setting in order to receive messages, so for those not explicitly enabling them, nothing would change.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:40PM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:40PM (#305378) Journal

        Exactly how I feel about it (about having a from the rest of my life disjunct identity here, I mean), also with the same options.

        Only the default-setting, I would propose to have "messages from registered users". I mean, per default they can even comment in my journal, so why shouldn't they be able to send a private message? Per default it should be possible to reach all users, also those who are to lazy to configure their setting. Maybe next login could forward to the page with the available settings, to point the user with his nose to it to make a choice. And the most liberal option should be to be able to receive messages also from anonymous users. Personally, I'd probably disable that option, but I could imagine some people would like that as well.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:50PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:50PM (#305389) Homepage Journal

          I wasn't even considering anonymous users. Down that way lies a whole new vector for spammy badness that's more difficult to detect than comment spam.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:01PM

            by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:01PM (#305398) Journal

            ...which is why it should be disabled by default. If a user explicitly enables it, maybe even ignores a warning, it's his own decision. (Unless you see a problem for the overall system. It would certainly be possible to implement a kind of break, like no more than one PM from any IP per 5 minutes.)

            But this was only an afterthought from my side anyway, personally I wouldn't enable it anyway.

            --
            Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:57PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:57PM (#305394) Journal

          Well, I don't personally care whether messages are enabled by default (I would change the setting to "no foes" if available), but I could imagine that those who are opposed to the feature would be able to accept it if is is not enabled by default.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @12:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @12:22AM (#305518)

          How would you respond to an anonymous message?

          I suppose you can do something like ... Craigslist? Where you can have Soylentnews relay the responses to the original sender's true identity but not forward said identity to the original recipient.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:20AM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:20AM (#305535) Homepage Journal

            Well, I suppose we could rig it up to match your ipid (a hash of your ip address) and deliver it that way but that would take significantly more work. Right now I'm thinking it'd start off as registered users only if we end up doing it.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:16AM

            by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:16AM (#305646) Journal

            I wouldn't. That would be one way. Some IP based magic would be possible, but fails with dynamic IP or proxy.

            Still it would be sufficient to drop someone an email address or alike to get in touch.

            --
            Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:05PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:05PM (#305403)

      Exactly. Devs: why are you even wasting time thinking about this? The site works fine as it is, since you fixed the really bad issues with Slashcode. If there's any outstanding issues, fix those. Otherwise, take a vacation, or go work on some other open-source project that really needs help.

      This is a great example of what's wrong with software these days: developers either ignore harder problems, or projects that really do need work, and instead waste time implementing useless features that almost no one wants, instead of just leaving well enough alone.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:33PM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:33PM (#305467) Journal

        instead waste time implementing useless features that almost no one wants,

        Currently no one is wasting their development time, they try to find out if almost no-one wants this feature. BTW: I would like it very much, you obviously not, so lets find out instead of projecting our opinions on the masses...

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:54PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:54PM (#305476) Homepage Journal

        Devs: why are you even wasting time thinking about this?

        Because I'm not in the mood to chase down obscure bugs right now and there's only so much vidya you can play before you start feeling like a slacker.

        This isn't wasting dev time or adding bloat to the site though. It's asking you lot if it's worth our time to even look at. If it is, it might take a day or two dev time before it's on the dev server for testing. If it's not, we drop it and don't bother with it again unless something changes.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by mechanicjay on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:13PM

    by mechanicjay (7) <reversethis-{gro ... a} {yajcinahcem}> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:13PM (#305296) Homepage Journal

    It would be handy at times to be able to shoot someone a PM. Just like web forums, I find that it in no way detracts from the conversational threads. It is however, a handy way to have an off-topic follow-up that really doesn't belong in the comment thread. Just like PMs on a web forum, I don't think anyone expects them to be instant, because it's not a chat, it's like a gimpy internal email system, which is fine and useful, but not a killer feature.

    Perhaps, I'm a dumb, but I really don't understand the win for running an XMPP server, since we already run our own IRC server. I'd be connected to either with the same IM client I am today...What's the point?

    --
    My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:18PM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:18PM (#305496) Homepage Journal
      This is about the way I feel, to. I have in the past wished for PMs on the predecessor site. But then I realize people could use them to contact me, and then I start to rethink it. Overall on the web forums I've been on that had PMs, it was a net positive, except for a few places where it pretty much stifled the public discussion. For most of the discussions I have here, I would want to keep the discussion public, and I'd only want PMs for something offtopic and of mutual interest.
      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:14PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:14PM (#305297)
    I can say I've wanted this once or twice. I found one of my old comments on Slashdot where I ripped into a guy for something that he didn't actually say. I wish I had a way to send a DM and say "sorry I was an ass."
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:17PM (#305299)

      What stops you from doing that publicly?

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:26PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:26PM (#305307)
        He hadn't posted in over a month, can't click 'reply'.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:38PM (#305317)

          I see.

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:51PM

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:51PM (#305332)
            It's a really fringe case.
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:18PM

    by Freeman (732) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:18PM (#305300) Journal

    1. Sure, whatever floats your boat.
    2. a.) It would be best for it to not require a 3rd party plugin.
            b.) Make sure the Messaging service won't break normal soylentnews stuff.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:40PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:40PM (#305321) Homepage Journal

      My boat is best floated by not coding stuff. Both because I'm lazy and because I'd rather not see software bloat infect an otherwise usable site.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday February 17 2016, @11:34PM

        by Freeman (732) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @11:34PM (#306017) Journal

        In that case I would say, IRC works good enough for those who want to be sociable.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:21PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:21PM (#305303) Homepage Journal

    Perhaps I lack imagination, but I'm not seeing the value in user-to-user messaging, at least not WRT the messaging system.

    I suspect (as was suggested) that it "could also cut down on comment participation if you can just message someone directly."

    I do get the idea that there might be value in being in out-of-band communication, especially if there's some interaction that isn't apropos to article comments, e.g., communication regarding a potential project or other non-public interaction between users.

    However, wouldn't that be better served by something like a "double-blind" email form? Go to a user's page and send a message which is then emailed to the user's registered email address *without revealing either the sender's or recipient's email address*. This is fairly simple to implement, too. This would be analogous to the 'email' messaging option, except that it would be unnecessary to retain the message after sending.

    Theoretically, the potential recipient could decide whether or not they wish to receive messages from others as well -- although that could be done easily enough with the internal messaging system as well.

    This has an advantage over needing to install an XMPP client, which would require cooperation on both ends. An XMPP server has advantages as well, assuming you want a messaging system that's synchronous.

    I would advocate using a double-blind email rather than the internal messaging system, as that would remove the necessity for SN to retain copies of what are not really public communications. When using the internal messaging system, we'd need to maintain those messages until they are deleted by the user or auto-deleted.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:39PM (#305318)

      > Perhaps I lack imagination, but I'm not seeing the value in user-to-user messaging, at least not WRT the messaging system.

      So people can talk shit about others without doing it in public.

      Whether you think that is a good or bad thing is a completely different question.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:48PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:48PM (#305327) Homepage Journal

        So people can talk shit about others without doing it in public.

        Actually, I prefer to talk shit about people in public. For example, you show really poor reading comprehension:

        I'm not seeing the value in user-to-user messaging, at least not WRT the messaging system. [emphasis added]

        Did you miss that part or did you just ignore it in order to make your snarky, if not very bright, comment?

        See what I mean? That's talking shit about you right out in the open. Lucky you.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:03PM (#305351)

          > Actually, I prefer to talk shit about people in public.

          Are you such an assburger that you can't comprehend that other people find value in things which you don't?

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:21PM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:21PM (#305366) Homepage Journal

            I don't care what *you* think or want. That's different.

            And why should I? You don't even bother to be pseudonymous.

            Since you're AC, I couldn't send you a PM anyway. However, if you post with a logged in account, should we move forward with this, I promise to talk shit about you privately as well as publicly.
            !

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:45PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:45PM (#305381)

              > I don't care what *you* think or want. That's different.

              Not only are you demonstrably autistic, you can't read for shit either.

              (1) I said "talk shit about" not to.
              (2) Being AC I obviously have no interest in it myself.

              You wondered if you lack imagination, well buddy the answer is you sure do. Unable to comprehend that basic adage of "different strokes for different folks" you are exactly the kind of person who should never be allowed to vote on anything.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:57PM

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:57PM (#305395) Homepage Journal

                > I don't care what *you* think or want. That's different.

                Not only are you demonstrably autistic, you can't read for shit either.

                (1) I said "talk shit about" not to.
                (2) Being AC I obviously have no interest in it myself.

                You wondered if you lack imagination, well buddy the answer is you sure do. Unable to comprehend that basic adage of "different strokes for different folks" you are exactly the kind of person who should never be allowed to vote on anything.

                You're adorable! You have such a great combination of qualities -- dumb *and* excitable. I bet you're a huge hit with the mentally challenged MOTAS'.

                Have you ever considered starting your own Youtube channel? I'm sure it would provide those in a vegetative state *hours* of enjoyment.

                Toodles!

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:43PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:43PM (#305323) Homepage Journal

      No worries about message retention. Messages are only retained two weeks at the moment anyway. Users also have the option to receive most either via web or to their registered email account. Or to not receive them at all.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:51PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:51PM (#305333) Homepage Journal

        I see your point. At the same time, not retaining user-to-user messaging *at all* renders warrants, NSLs, civil discovery, hacking attempts on the messaging system and other annoyances moot, since the only data retained on SN is that which is already public.

        Just a thought.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:56PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:56PM (#305342) Homepage Journal

          An interesting and relevant thought too.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:09PM

          by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:09PM (#305491) Journal

          Good point. I amend/correct my previous comment [soylentnews.org]: If I can get a message on Soylentnews web page that a new private message is in my mailbox, that would be quite acceptable as well, and such a notification would not contain any hack-worthy information. I just don't want to keep monitoring that particular yahoo-mailbox.

          --
          Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:58PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:58PM (#305344) Homepage Journal

        I'd also point out that it would take very little work to implement.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:47PM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:47PM (#305385) Journal

      However, wouldn't that be better served by something like a "double-blind" email form?

      Hmmm ... thinking about it, it could be even simpler: Instead of a form, every user could get an @soylentnews.org address which just forwards to the real address, with the following properties:

      • It only accepts mails from email addresses that are registered for an user (or at least it can be configured as such by the receiving user). Possibly it can be even further configures, for example to not accept mails by foes.
      • It replaces the from/sender address by the corresponding @soylentnews.org address (and for some limited time frame whitelists that address for replies, even if it otherwise would not accept those replies — so whenever you are contacted by mail, you can reply), to ensure double-blind (assuming the mail does not itself contain identifying information, of course). Also, it cuts the "Received" headers so for the recipient they start at SoylentNews. Possibly also the message ID has to be replaced.
      • It limits the number of mails forwarded by the system (and possibly the size) and disallows HTML mails and attachments, to prevent malicious use.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:55PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:55PM (#305391) Homepage Journal

        This idea has some particular merit to it in that it would be audioguy or mechanicjay's headache rather than mine. Especially since they'd have to go through and exclude all the staff addresses from that so we could still use the SN mail server.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:56PM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:56PM (#305393) Journal

        This requires some rules to rewrite user names, e.g. if they contain spaces. In that case someone could be tempted to register "maxwell.demon" in order to occupy the name you should get otherwise.
        Alternatively, the mail could always go to "Username <gw@soylentnews.org>".

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:07PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:07PM (#305405) Journal

          The "name" part of the email address could be the user number (for example, I'd get the forwarding address 1608@soylentnews.org and yours would be 532@soylentnews.org). That would also make the handling of existing @soylentnews.org mail addresses easy, as I guess none of them are currently purely numeric; the rule would simply be that numeric user "names" are interpreted as redirected addresses, while others are interpreted as regular addresses.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:09PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:09PM (#305409) Homepage Journal

          This requires some rules to rewrite user names, e.g. if they contain spaces. In that case someone could be tempted to register "maxwell.demon" in order to occupy the name you should get otherwise.
          Alternatively, the mail could always go to "Username ".

          Actually, I was thinking about a form on the user's page, rather than composing an actual email (as many have mentioned, they wouldn't use such a feature if they needed to go outside the site to do so).

          At the same time, as Maxwell Daemon [soylentnews.org] pointed out, it could certainly work as you envision.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:05PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:05PM (#305402) Homepage Journal

        Hmmm ... thinking about it, it could be even simpler: Instead of a form, every user could get an @soylentnews.org address which just forwards to the real address, with the following properties:

        An interesting idea and not a bad one either. Given that the DB already stores the username *and* the registered email address (assuming it exists for a particular user), we already have the information necessary to make that happen.

        However, as both TheMightyBuzzard [soylentnews.org] and q.kontinuum [soylentnews.org] pointed out, many folks use throwaway email addresses here.

        However, that could certainly work and the same technique is pretty widely used around the 'net.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:47PM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:47PM (#305386) Journal

      However, wouldn't that be better served by something like a "double-blind" email form? Go to a user's page and send a message which is then emailed to the user's registered email address *without revealing either the sender's or recipient's email address*.

      I don't think so. The mail address I used to sign up here is used solely for the purpose of signing up to forums etc. and otherwise never checked. Not sure if others are doing it similar, but for me integrating the PM into the SN messaging system would be much better.

      --
      Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:31PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:31PM (#305309)

    we'll be needing a proper AJAX dev

    All the witches were burned months ago, remember? : P

    If javascript is on the table though, might as well take a look at websockets. There are some perl websocket libraries (did a google and picked the first). https://github.com/kraih/mojo [github.com]
    You wouldn't have to store anything in the db (yay, no schema changes) because you'll be pushing the data right back out. Obviously only for instant communication. If you wanted to pm someone who was offline then schema changes and crud would need to be made too. But a websocket based chat client wouldn't be restricted to two parties. You could connect any number of people together, even a story level chat. But i feel like that would indeed displace the comments.

    My advice is to avoid any live communication because not many lentils are fans of witchcraft. Avoid a PM system completely. Allow users to email each other through you, the intermediary. No db work and you use can leverage an existing communication system (email). What do you think?

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:46PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:46PM (#305326) Homepage Journal

      Problem with double blind email is that quite a number of users register from throwaway or outright fake addresses. It'd be nice for them to be able to maintain that level of anonymity and still receive messages if it's something we decide to do.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:02PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:02PM (#305350)

        Then keeping with the normal SN way of doing things, maybe a web 1.0 style form that posts to the database. Quite a bit more work though. If we wanted to push a new technology (ooh, say yes!) then how about a websocket bridge to the irc server (written in perl, of course)? https://github.com/xantus/mojo-websocket-examples/blob/master/script/websocket-irc-example-2 [github.com]

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:15PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:15PM (#305361) Homepage Journal

        Problem with double blind email is that quite a number of users register from throwaway or outright fake addresses. It'd be nice for them to be able to maintain that level of anonymity and still receive messages if it's something we decide to do.

        An excellent point. That would make unlogged XMPP embedded into the site more attractive -- assuming that can be done without plug-ins.

        Another issue with using the messaging system is that it makes it possible for fuckheads to spam users, either with commercial crap or just to be an asshole.

        If a decision is made to go with the messaging system, I'd recommend a per user option to disable it.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:29PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:29PM (#305371) Homepage Journal

          That'd be one of the perks of using the existing messaging system; default behavior is to let the user select whether they want them via email, web interface, or not at all. I'd have to do bitmask math to figure out how to disable each of the three options. Easy but annoying.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by SanityCheck on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:16PM

      by SanityCheck (5190) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:16PM (#305414)

      I'd love for JavaScript to be on the table, but the angry trolls will come out of 1999 to disagree any time now!

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:05AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:05AM (#305525) Journal

        If I have to enable javascript for this site, I don't know what I will do!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @05:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @05:19AM (#305606)

        I have a DOM wrapper for my ASM.js. Now my client side code is written in C.

        Fuck Javascript.

  • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:37PM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:37PM (#305315) Journal

    Interesting idea to open the topic today [soylentnews.org] :-)

    xmpp might be an option, but I would prefer something more asynchronous. I have my account here and try to keep it pseudonymous, i.e. to avoid any obvious connection to other social network accounts. As a consequence, I want to be "q.kontinuum" just when I'm logged in here, otherwise not. I probably wouldn't configure my pidgin or anything else to use an xmpp account provided by soylentnews, at least not per default when I start pidgin.

    What I would like is some sort of mailbox/account, could be integrated in SN, could be a separate imaps or pop3s account, a diaspora account, or anything else serving the above described purpose. An xmpp server or IRC channel would do as well, but a kind of buffer or bouncer would be required to store messages when I'm not online, and I might abuse the bouncer to collect messages for a whole week before I read them in bulk.

    For IRC: As discussed in IRC, would be great when there was not only a bouncer but also some pseudonym transfer / account connection via NickServ, to be able to maintain the same identity on both media. (Same goes for any other chat/messaging system.)

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:45PM

      by cmn32480 (443) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {08423nmc}> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:45PM (#305324) Journal

      Perhaps an IRC bouncer account as a subscriber perk?

      --
      "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:28PM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:28PM (#305370) Journal

        Not sure. I don't mind paying the subscription fee and getting some perks in return, but this wouldn't help me to message arbitrary users, only those which are subscribed as well. Also it would limit me to those users willing to use IRC as well. (Which would be a similar problem for the other options as well, unless the receiver receives a notification in his SN message box). Would it be possible to have a kind of gateway? An IRC bot? Something like

        /msg #gw cm32480 Hi, here is my private message

        would result in a PM sent to your messages? (Other than that, an IRC-bouncer as a perk for subscribers would still be very welcome.)
        Would be even nicer to be able to send private messages from within SN web page, that way there is less risk to miss-type the receiver.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:48PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:48PM (#305328) Journal
    The forums on nasaspaceflight.com have user to user messaging. It works well. Most of the time you probably won't want to use it, but when you have a comment directly for the person (or just want to gossip about something off topic in private), it's a great tool.

    A weird problem I noticed is that someone once tried to trap me into violating the terms of service using messaging (I had messaged them first with a disagreement about one of their posts and things went from there) and when that didn't work, accused me of stalking them to the administrators of the site. I believe a part of the problem was that the other person perceived my message as an escalation of our ongoing disagreement.

    I think it would help to have a means to ignore other users in terms of messaging, but not so easy that you can accidentally ignore people.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Adamsjas on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:49PM

    by Adamsjas (4507) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:49PM (#305329)

    Q1: Do we want?
    My opinion: NO.
    Details: Lets not go there. There is no reason to serve a warrant on Soylent now, because everything is out in the open. If we add private messaging there is just something new for authorities to want access to.
    The settings panel suggests there is a private messaging system, but I can't find out how I would send a message, and all I get are reply notifications and moderation messages.

    Q2: I wouldn't object to getting message off our servers by using xmpp (not that I could be bothered), and it supports privacy mode, but again, I don't see any reason to store anything beyond an address on our servers.

    General: I think this would become another avenue for Mod Army mobilization: "Hey everybody, be sure to mod down #662B2, and kick his ass in the comments too." There is already some of that on IRC.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:01PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:01PM (#305348) Homepage Journal

      General: I think this would become another avenue for Mod Army mobilization: "Hey everybody, be sure to mod down #662B2, and kick his ass in the comments too." There is already some of that on IRC.

      True but it's almost always Gravis doing it and nobody listens to him anyway.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:16PM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:16PM (#305493) Homepage Journal

      Details: Lets not go there. There is no reason to serve a warrant on Soylent now, because everything is out in the open. If we add private messaging there is just something new for authorities to want access to.

      Wow. Your use case for this website seems much more interesting than mine.

      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
      • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday February 17 2016, @02:04AM

        by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @02:04AM (#305558) Homepage Journal
        Oops, there's the nothing to hide fallacy.
        --
        ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 17 2016, @09:10AM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @09:10AM (#305680) Journal

      everything is out in the open

      User mail addresses are not, unless the user wants to have it public. This could justify a warrent in case authorities want to find out who exactly is behind a specific comment.

      I appreciate the concern. A solution might be to not store/cache the messages, but to directly send them to the users registration mail account. In SN, the user could just receive a notification that there *is* a message waiting for him in his mailbox (in case he didn't use his main mail address for registration). Would that be enough to avoid the increased risk of a warrent? It should also mitigate the concerns about discussions going off the forum, because this kind of messaging would be far too inconvenient.

      As for the use cases: For me it would probably be to share contact information with certain users without sharing them generally. Imagine discussing jobs, and I want to ask someone if they are hiring. One of us would have to link some real live data to his soylentnews identity in public to make this happen. With PM, I could drop a message with my for this purpose preferred mail address, and only disclose my identity to that specific person. (Ok, for geeks ther is always a way [soylentnews.org]. It's just even less convenient.)

      --
      Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
  • (Score: 2) by useless on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:52PM

    by useless (426) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:52PM (#305335)

    Don't really care one way or the other, but if it does become a feature, would be real nice to be able to turn it off completely. And if you do decide to implement it, you'll need to figure out a way for users to block other users on a case by case basis (this will be inevitably be requested once the mechanism is in place).

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:52PM

    by SanityCheck (5190) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:52PM (#305336)

    I'm against User to User communication. To me it serves no purpose. If people have a really compelling reason to message others please lay it out. But I agree that it would reduce comment participation and probably lead to flame wars outside of purview of moderation. Of course we can make the messaging moderated by admins, but that just adds to their workload. And you would need code of conduct for that, and uniform enforcement... nothing good can come of it.

    But that is just my opinion. If others cannot live without this feature, than I can just ignore it.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Appalbarry on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:54PM

    by Appalbarry (66) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:54PM (#305339) Journal

    I'm still very happy with AIM [aim.com] - what more do you need?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:18PM (#305363)

      I'm still very happy with AIM - what more do you need?

      In all seriousness, I still use it. I started using AIM in 2000 or so, and it's interesting that my contact list (mostly developers) is still populated. Probably because they've all switched (like me) to multi-service messaging clients, so to them they don't even care what they're connecting to on the backend.

      So on that note, why not just have a place in your user profile where you could list your preferred messaging service and handle?

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:34PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:34PM (#305375) Homepage Journal

        Yeah, revamping that probably needs to be done regardless. It's not like we can be arsed to keep up with every messaging client. Probably better to have just two fields, one for your preferred service and one for the handle.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:55PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:55PM (#305340)

    While I suppose it really doesn't matter, since I would not be using such a service (and doubly not using it if it requires a 3rd party app); if other people want it, whatever. As long as the UI isnt in my face and demanding my attention. Perhaps leave a checkbox to opt out, so that people don't waste their time messaging people that will never read nor reply.

    If I am factually incorrect about something, I want it to be known to make sure other people don't quote me. If someone wants to flamebait me for an opinion I hold, do it out in the open where everyone can see. Hell, I might even agree with you and reverse my position; then everyone would get to see how superior your argument is! Winning is the entire point of the internet, is it not?

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:59PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:59PM (#305347) Journal

    Who wants me to directly message them as a test of what the most basic user-to-user messaging could look like?

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by tibman on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:46PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:46PM (#305382)

      What are you wearing?

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:06PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:06PM (#305404)

        It works! http://imgur.com/VrTbSNz [imgur.com]

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:07PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:07PM (#305355) Journal

    The cons include it could take up to five minutes for a message to be delivered (this can be tweaked but not really made instant) because we only process the message queue that often and not being able to use your instant messenger of choice.

    How is that a con? We don't need a chat system. If you want to chat, you can use other means; u2u messages can be used to exchange the information how to reach the other by whatever means. I see the value of u2u in being able to alert others of things you think they might be interested in, and in being able to exchange contact information without making it public.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:10PM

    by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:10PM (#305356)

    > Do we even want user to user messaging?

    I don't know what everyone else thinks but for me, no. If everyone wants it, cool, I'm not against it, I might use it once or twice but I doubt I'd make a habit of it. The people on here fall into two groups: Strangers and people who already have my personal e-mail address.

    > Should we use the existing messaging system or fire up an xmpp server or what?

    If it requires more than my browser, I definitely won't use it.

  • (Score: 2) by Valkor on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:30PM

    by Valkor (4253) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:30PM (#305373)

    Do we even want user to user messaging?
    I have never once found myself thinking "gee I wanna tell EthanolFueled to piss off in a direct fashion". So, that's a "no" for me.

    Should we use the existing messaging system or fire up an xmpp server or what?
    Existing. Another service is more shit to maintain, and thus, more expense.

    How does IRC stack up against these options?
    The only thing keeping me off your channel is that it's on some weird ass network and I don't feel like adding it to my confs. The other problem is that IRC requires both parties to be on at the same time, unless you get services involved.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:55PM (#305392)

    ...will be blocked

    irc can do pm, so if more users joined irc via web chat or hexchat etc it would be easier to contact people (pm or using bot tell commands)

    given that more people likely won't join irc cos $blah, i reckon it might be interesting to make such messaging system available using the api so that a bot script can be coded to send/receive messages from irc, because there is more discussion there and also cos it would be really nerdy :p

    anyway, just my 2c

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by arslan on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:07PM

    by arslan (3462) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:07PM (#305406)

    I come here for news and opinions, no matter how dumb. Even off topic trolls and flames are entertaining at times. Reactions to ethanol-fueled et el are sometimes popcorn worthy...

  • (Score: 2) by computersareevil on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:10PM

    by computersareevil (749) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:10PM (#305410)

    1. I do not.
    2. Not relevant because of 1.

    Sincerely, thank you for asking.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:23PM (#305418)

    Do we even want user to user messaging?

    No, by Hades, no!
    What is this facebook? Focus on what the site is actually about and for fucks sake, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Focus on the things that are broken!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @02:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @02:25AM (#306092)

      Obvious Facebook employee is obvious.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:29PM (#305423)

    I know AJAX is likely to come up for this in particular but we'll be needing a proper AJAX dev before we go down that road.

    Please don't. SN is one of those few sites that work without any need for JS to be enabled. I'd like to keep it that way.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:02PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 16 2016, @11:02PM (#305483) Homepage Journal

      No worries there. It's site-wide policy that nothing goes into the codebase that doesn't degrade gracefully and my personal policy that anything that can be done without js, must be done without js.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:18AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:18AM (#305531)

        anything that can be done without js, must be done without js.

        Then why is the collapsible comment tree done with JS? Legacy stuff? It's fairly easy to do it just CSS. [thecssninja.com]

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:23AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:23AM (#305539) Homepage Journal

          Because someone wrote a userscript that was useful enough it got included in the source. If we can do it via css though, that's definitely going on my list of things that need to happen.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @10:09AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @10:09AM (#305690)

            Cool beans.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:32PM

    by Snow (1601) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:32PM (#305425) Journal

    1) I've had the need to send someone a direct message a couple times, but I ended up just replying to them in a story. I know it's not clean (and it's kinda spammy), but the comment counts are rarely so high that it causes a problem. I think that the potential for 1on1 flamewars would be high, and it's more fun to read the flamewar on the public page. So, I would say even though I have wanted to DM someone at times, I think overall it is not required.

    2) If I have to install something/sign in somewhere else, I will NEVER use it. If it takes 5 mins to receive a message, that is fine. I can't think of a scenario where something is truly that time sensitive.

  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:36PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:36PM (#305469)

    In a way it's like the GPL: Using it is all nice and well but be prepared to defend it in court when the time comes or else it's pointless.

    If you are going to go through with it, you'd need end-to-end encryption to cover your own ass. When the warrants and injunctions starts landing, not knowing what people communicate would be necessary.

    --
    compiling...
  • (Score: 2) by damnbunni on Wednesday February 17 2016, @12:18AM

    by damnbunni (704) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @12:18AM (#305517) Journal

    1) I want user to user messaging. There are times something comes up that's rather off-topic to the article being discussed, but I would like to go into more detail about it with the poster. Usually when there's an offhand mention of something that might solve some weird tech problem I have. And I have lots of those.

    2) Use the existing messaging system. Keep it simple.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @05:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @05:16AM (#305604)

    The cons include it could take up to five minutes for a message to be delivered (this can be tweaked but not really made instant) because we only process the message queue that often and not being able to use your instant messenger of choice. I know AJAX is likely to come up for this in particular but we'll be needing a proper AJAX dev before we go down that road.

    Implement WebRTC. [webrtc.org] Bonus, you get voice and video chat if you really want to confirm the nerd's status of "parent's basement". If your end users have terribad NAT, then fall back to the chron job. Also, WebSockets > AJAX

  • (Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday February 17 2016, @12:29PM

    by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @12:29PM (#305720)

    To be a little more nuanced.

    If you set up a private messaging system, then you are setting yourself up for getting subpoenas and requests for assistance from lawyers and police (and other agencies), which will add to your workload. If you are required to testify for a court case, that will also absorb a lot of time.

    So I would advise not making a rod for your own backs: don't take on unnecessary administrative burden. If you are not already dropping connection logs as quickly as reasonably possible, you should also do that.

    If you really want to go ahead, I don't think real-time is needed. Do the least possible to give the necessary capability. Private messaging allows private abuse and harassment, so make it clear that you will not resist legally authorized requests for copies of private messages. Unfortunately, this will mean retaining a lawyer and deciding which requests you will recognise, and which requests you won't.

    Frankly, I don't think you need the hassle, or the expense.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 17 2016, @02:53PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday February 17 2016, @02:53PM (#305799) Homepage Journal

      Unless we're troubleshooting something, the only logs with ip addresses we run are the apache error_log and subscription type logs. At least on the webservers. I've no idea about the other servers. The former so we can eventually fix everything and the latter so nobody gets screwed out of something they paid good money for.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Thursday February 18 2016, @02:49AM

    by patella.whack (3848) on Thursday February 18 2016, @02:49AM (#306102)

    my 2cents,
    If the goal of the site is to create meaningful dialogue, then I'd say don't implement it. It would foster a back and forth between users re: opinions on a subject, which is fine, but I'd rather steer those comments into threads so we can benefit from the exposure to the ideas. There's already a mechanism for users to post a way for contact, and why not leave it at that? That way, someone can post their public availability if they want to and receive off-topic or personal correspondence. Otherwise, if it's about ideas, why not engage said person on the thread? After all, isn't that what we're here for?

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday February 18 2016, @01:06PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday February 18 2016, @01:06PM (#306301) Journal

    I don't know that messaging other users directly would enhance the site, but perhaps borrowing a feature from Twitter might. Now, I have no use for Twitter, myself, because there's not much there, there. But being able to put "@takyon" in a post where I'm talking about something he wrote and have it show up in his inbox would be good. That draws him into that discussion, which might not happen unless he sees the thread specifically.

    It could be limited to registered UID's, or other steps can be taken to prevent spam.

    If the @ symbol doesn't work, we could make it "|" or ">", which is more unix-like anyway.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:15PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:15PM (#306557) Homepage Journal

      Phoenix666 We already can do the @username or @uid thing (Hover over your nick. I typed it exactly as it looks. The linking was automagical.) but it needs to have a colon at the end to account for nicks with spaces. Didn't put the notification message in there cause I thought "Buzzard, that'd get abused horribly if you put it in". Much the same as u2u messaging could. Maybe get one message every hour with links to all the mentions so if someone name-drop-spams you you only have one message to delete? Basically what I'm saying is it'd take a little design thought and likely won't make this next site update if we end up doing so.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday February 18 2016, @02:18PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 18 2016, @02:18PM (#306323) Journal

    Buzzard, I've been away for a while so I might have the wrong end of the stick here but there is a definite use-case for staff-to-user/user-to-staff, particularly for editors. I can't think of a user-to-user justification of any particular merit, in fact, I would really not welcome one as it seems to easy to abuse.

    However, I'm sure that others will see things differently.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:21PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 18 2016, @09:21PM (#306560) Homepage Journal

      Heya, Jan, good to have you back. You already can do editor/admin->user messages, they just can't reply back the same way. Check any user's ~user page. Also there's a field where you can give a reason for submission rejection that'll send them a message now too. I'll probably go through and write another bit of logic for user->editor/admin messaging so they can reply or send unsolicited messages too but that's for next week or something after we've cleared our plates of what we already want in this next site update.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.