Improved Ignore functionality

In the last couple of days I became aware that the ignore option can become problematic.

My idea would be to make the ignore option more transparent. I think it would be helpful, if there would be a consistent placeholder for comments from ignored people on foreign posts e.g. “Ignored comment of person XY”. So you could much better understand some reactions of people in a thread because you see there is a comment which normally would be invisible for you. It also would have the benefit, that you could purposefully decide to stop ignoreing certain people.

Another option would be to treat those comments and posts of ignored people like the NSFW-flag. I guess that would be a very informative and flexible solution, because if you like, you could peek into some post/comments of people, which are on your ignore list.If I think about, the second option looks more attractive to me. Do I have overlooked something ? What do you think ?

Regards, Erik

There are existing discussions for not showing comments from ignored people and discussions about blocking reshares of posts authored by ignored people, so this thread is kinda redundant.

1 Like

Damn it, I was afraid, that you would tell me something like that :flushed:

Well, the threads you have mentioned are pretty old and does not exactly match my thoughts. I think a new thread can be refreshing sometimes and open some new perspectives - even if there is some redundancy.

However, instead of splitting discussions into two parts, you could also simply reply to the ones that are already there, to add your ideas. :wink:

1 Like

I agree with @denschub here. Having multiple discussions about the same topic doesn’t help at all. And the first one is more or less exactly what you suggest here and it’s only half a year old.

Normally I would agree with both of you, but the mentioned threads are very old, maybe outdated and do not exactly match my topic. Actually no one will read a long old thread - call it laziness, but it is common behavior. Maybe many of the people who discussed these topics are not active anymore. Why not give things a fresh twist, especially if we are talking about new features and improvements ? The level of importance of those topics change over time and I think there have to be a dynamic otherwise people lose interest.

I know you guys see the whole picture, you know most of the current issues, but new people, like me, or normal users do not have this overview. That’s why I think it is better to have an active redundant discussion, than no discussion. You sometimes give me the impression, that anything is discussed already and needs no further discussion, that can be a litte frustrating.

Do not get me wrong, I do not want to annoy you. I guess you are little afraid that people become too pushy - you shouldn’t take wishes as demands. As you said, working on Diaspora* have to be fun :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I agree with @denschub and @supertux88.

As the project gets older and expands, it’s important to try to keep discussions streamlined. There are already many duplicate threads in multiple locations, and each additional duplicate thread just increases the fragmentation of discussion and makes it harder to get towards resolutions on an issue. I can’t see any benefit in ‘redundant discussions’, as you call them; they are just that: redundant.

People who are lazy, in your words, are unlikely to be useful contributors, so I don’t think we should operate our discussion fora primarily with those people in mind. In any case, I actually think people are less likely to pick through four largely identical discussions to find which one contains discussion of exactly the thing they had in mind than read through one longer one, where it is obvious this is the place where discussion of their issue will have taken place.

It’s certainly not saying that ‘anything is discussed already and needs no further discussion’ – it’s about keeping the discussion on one topic in, as far as possible, just one place. And it’s not about wishes as demands – it’s just that as soon as another duplicate thread has been created, there is yet one more duplicate thread, even if it doesn’t lead anywhere.

1 Like

You are wrong. The first thread I’ve linked was started in Dezember 2016, so I’m having a hard time understanding how you can consider that “old”. Also, no, they are talking exactly about what you want to do: hide comments and hide reshares from ignored people.

This has nothing to do with being “pushy”. We have discourse so that we can talk about features. We try to keep it at one thread per specific feature so that if somebody wants to implement something, all information, all possible implementation details, all opinions, are in one place. It is not only annoying to have the same discussions over and over again, it is also harmful, since one discussion then lacks (maybe good) arguments made in another. There is no point to that.

Right. And discussing everything again, raising the same points over and over again, is a waste of time. Not only for us, but also for you, since you could have participated in either one of the existing discussions, or maybe read through the thread, pick existing issues and try figuring out a solution for them.

In your example, there is a valid concern about simply hiding comments, since it may completely destroy the context and the value of the discussion at whole for other people. I do not want to miss such concerns just because someone feels like opening a new discussion.

Some discussions (I’m thinking about the XMPP chat or the account export/import thing, for example), run for many years before all theoretical issues are sorted out, and then someone can start implementing the technical parts and use the Discourse thread as a reference. Without that single “thread of truth”, I am sure we’d miss a lot of edge cases that have been discussed (which happened way too often in the past).

Our statistics clearly show that quite a substantial amount of people actually do read those threads, and then start contributing to that existing thread with new ideas, new issues, and new spins.

I’ve said this many times before, but let me repeat myself: In diaspora*, implementing “simple” and “easy” features often turn out to be way more complex than one might think, and without thinking and talking about the complex parts first, trying to implement such feature ends in a disaster where no mergable code is being written, but many, many hours wasted. We do our best to keep the information density in such comment threads high and reduce the amount of noise (for example by deleting off-topic comments, encouraging people to stick to the case, …), so it’s as easy for someone to jump in as we can somehow provide the information.

If someone can’t be bothered to work through existing research and discussions, then, well, too bad. We can’t be a project where everyone can contribute without preparing themselves, so if a contributor is not willing to read prior work to a feature they want to implement (or improve), then, well, do not contribute.

You are right if you say that we might lose some contributions here. However, we’d also lose contributions (and, at the end of the day, feature quality) if we allow threads to split up.

1 Like

@denschub @goob

I can understand your point of view very well under the perspective of a programmer and project manager. For normal Diaspora users, not contributors, these strict rules can be a little bit “annoying”. In my understanding github is the place to keep track on features etc. and there it makes absolutely sense to completely avoid redundancy. I was not aware that the same strict rules apply here too - my fault.

I agree with you, that wouldn’t work. I will take it to heart for future posts.

Thank you for your detailed explanation @denschub, I hope I haven’t wasted too much of your time with this discussion. If you like, please move this thread to a more suitable place or delete it, it would be ok for me.

1 Like