The development team is considering adding "Notify user when name is mentioned" in future versions.
We consider putting usernames in a special bbc code, so users can be notified via email or pm that they are being talked to.
What do you all think?
what is the point of this to me its pointless,,,a bit like miss miss miss/sir sir sir there talking about you
i take it you mean everytime that a users name is used in a post they will recieve a notification....umm no thanks what happens when like for instance i make a post and several members then post sommat like" what a good post ozzie or thanks ozzie " i gonna get notified each time my name is mentioned ..and what happens if in admin/mods board we are talking about members do they get to know we are talking about them ..again No thanks this is like big brother watching you
Well thats my opinion
Well, as i said, we consider adding new bbc code that will be used for notifying members. For example:
" what a good post ozzie or thanks ozzie " - result with nothing, and:
" what a good post [nu]ozzie[/nu] or thanks ozzie " - result with notification to user "ozzie" because of using "nu" bbc code (which i just used like an example).
i still dont see the point of it!!why would someone want to notify someone that they were talking about them, but regardless of that i will watch this post with interest
A good idea indeed, I just worry about how to implement this without adding more queries.
Quote from: Ozzie on September 27, 2011, 06:23:45 PM
i still dont see the point of it!!why would someone want to notify someone that they were talking about them, but regardless of that i will watch this post with interest
Different forums, different needs ;)
I like the idea, but would suggest that it only does a lookup from the buddies list of the user posting , and perhaps ajax dropdown whilst typing is a good way of doing it.
Much like how facebook does it I guess.
If you had NU bbcode then it would be easy to spam the sites email function in a single post by naming all the members.
There are concerns related to abuse. Other relevant topic:
Member tagging idea? (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=453026.0)
TBH, I like the idea, and those of us used to social networks and big forums might miss it sometimes. It's not easy currently to notify someone of a post of their interest, you have to take up the time to:
- search in members for the person
- send them a PM with the link
- if you saved the link, or go several pages back when you got to PM them :D.
But not via PM, coz it can overload the system (especially if users like receiving email from forum when they got pm)
Maybe
Show unread posts since last visit.
Show new replies to your posts.
Show unread notifications since last visit. or You have new X notification(s). or X notification(s) [ FB like upper left system. ]
I actually disagree with this a lot...
it would work just fine on a local, small board... on a worldwide board with 30k+ members it would piss me off to no end (the same way it does on FB).
Maybe an option to allow/disallow mention/tag me and/or maybe permission to tag someone in post/topic
Quote from: Antes on September 29, 2011, 05:50:36 AM
Maybe an option to allow/disallow mention/tag me and/or maybe permission to tag someone in post/topic
+1 from me, and i would add option to limit number of tags in one post though.
I have to agree with Kindred on this one. Although such a feature could have its uses (especially on small and medium-sized boards), I think it would be more likely to be annoying, as well as open to abuse/security issues.
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, but personally I think this sounds like overkill. But as long as the feature would be possible to turn off both globally (from the admin interface) and for each user in their profile, I wouldn't mind such a function being added.
Well, +1 from side, it will actually help to increase activity.
As already discussed,
--> User should have option to disable / enable such notifications from her profile.
--> User group based permission to use such BBC
--> Can have option to send notification only to member if he is in buddy list.. or like .. receive notification only from buddies.
Being able to tag a user is something that is sorely needed. It helps keep people engaged in the community, but it is rougher for Admins, Moderators, and Mod Developers.
This can easily be controlled by allowing an option for the user to ingore tags within a topic. For example, a mod developer might want to select ingore being tagged in his/her own mod support topic. In other cases, the ingore option can be used when it is abused within a topic.
Also, you should only be allowed to tag user's that are participating within that particular topic. Otherwise, people will tag users to drag them into a topic conversation they do not care for.
I dig it. Facebook uses it.
One can always turn it off in profile notifications?
Adding a point to the discussion here. From another perspective, it's exactly on busy (big) boards that people may find it even more useful, because on such boards, even if one is active they won't manage to read not even close to the topics of their interest. One can only follow a few boards and rely on others to ... PM them topics that may interest them but they didn't happen to see. Missing topics of interest - respectively having an easier way to attract someone's interest than PM them with a link and all that, are IMHO the need something like this would answer.
Then there's the potential to abuse to deal with, sure.
From a smaller board perspective, I really like the idea. Something that could be turned on or off would be perfect.
I like the notification feature, but I think you should start considering to take a step further regarding the BBCode. SMF could be smarter than that, an easier way to notify a user like G+ or Facebook do.
I moved my Alumni board from Delphi Forums to a SMF board on my own site. (I loaded SMF 10/5/11 and am still learning.) This is the one feature I miss and my group has asked for, it did increase activity in my old forum.
Another option would be users getting a notice when they are quoted would do the trick. ~JMHO
great suggestion!
a modification which would ensure the functionality is welcome :laugh:
Quote from: Dzonny on September 27, 2011, 05:56:40 PM
The development team is considering adding "Notify user when name is mentioned" in future versions.
We consider putting usernames in a special bbc code, so users can be notified via email or pm that they are being talked to.
What do you all think?
This a good idea. But I don't think it's essential for this software.
If something like this is implemented, it shouldn't be a BBC tag, it should be either an AJAX Dropdown, like Facebook. No one, is going to intentionally add notify tags to every username, but in the cases of someone wanting to know where people are saying their name? It could be nice.
Make a profile setting for this, "Notify me when I am tagged in a post". That way people that find this annoying, can disable it, and those who would appreciate it can have it.
I also agree that there should be some sort of "Notifications" panel, rather than an email or a PM.
Quote from: Labradoodle-360 on October 19, 2011, 01:19:02 PM
If something like this is implemented, it shouldn't be a BBC tag, it should be either an AJAX Dropdown, like Facebook. No one, is going to intentionally add notify tags to every username, but in the cases of someone wanting to know where people are saying their name? It could be nice.
I agree. Using BBC for this is too...
/me is still thinking about the right word.
Thanks for suggestion Labradoodle, it sounds great to me. :)
It isn't something I would use.
Quote from: Dzonny on September 27, 2011, 05:56:40 PM
The development team is considering adding "Notify user when name is mentioned" in future versions.
We consider putting usernames in a special bbc code, so users can be notified via email or pm that they are being talked to.
What do you all think?
Similar to my idea for member tagging :) I think it would be a great feature. Lets say for something like my admin forum, a user is looking for a graphic designer, instead of asking them to contact blahblah, I could tag or bbcode the member's name in there to go check it out. Maybe make this an optional feature so that those that don't need it don't have to use it :) Good idea!
I would invite anyone interested to help with your proposals for the proper behavior of this feature, that you may have - whether as a mod or core it doesn't matter at this time. We can start with a mod anyway and see if it will prove more useful to people than it seems or on the contrary. I know I would be interested in making one once I have the time.
I think being able to "turn off" is a given already, from what I read here and in the other topic on this. Both globally and per user. Being available for buddy list... I'm afraid that asks for the next question, are buddy list useful, anyway, as implemented in 2.0? Would such option make them more useful, allowing notifications of being "tagged" from buddies?
We don't use the buddy lists on our forum. Being a smaller forum, we just have never seen the need for them.
I think it is a great idea.
The buddy system is pretty useless in my opinion in it's current state.
I just don't get the whole buddy list thing. I know who my friends are on the forum and I know those who are not my friends. We would get more use out of "s*** list" function. :P
As far as the name mentioned in thread function, I would be in favor of getting a pm sent to the member in question. I get messages automatically sent to my email when a pm is sent to me, so adding that as a function would seem redundant to me.
Quote from: Xarcell on October 05, 2011, 01:04:22 PM
Being able to tag a user is something that is sorely needed. It helps keep people engaged in the community, but it is rougher for Admins, Moderators, and Mod Developers.
This can easily be controlled by allowing an option for the user to ingore tags within a topic. For example, a mod developer might want to select ingore being tagged in his/her own mod support topic. In other cases, the ingore option can be used when it is abused within a topic.
Also, you should only be allowed to tag user's that are participating within that particular topic. Otherwise, people will tag users to drag them into a topic conversation they do not care for.
That's what I think.
Quote from: Xarcell on October 05, 2011, 01:04:22 PM
Also, you should only be allowed to tag user's that are participating within that particular topic. Otherwise, people will tag users to drag them into a topic conversation they do not care for.
I actually find this less useful then - even redundant in SMF. If you want to attract attention to someone to a topic, it's exactly because they're not participating in it. Otherwise, SMF has its awesome unread replies feature which will do exactly that: keep those who are already participating in a topic, informed about the new activity in the topic.
Quote from: Norv on November 13, 2011, 09:31:27 AM
Quote from: Xarcell on October 05, 2011, 01:04:22 PM
Also, you should only be allowed to tag user's that are participating within that particular topic. Otherwise, people will tag users to drag them into a topic conversation they do not care for.
I actually find this less useful then - even redundant in SMF. If you want to attract attention to someone to a topic, it's exactly because they're not participating in it. Otherwise, SMF has its awesome unread replies feature which will do exactly that: keep those who are already participating in a topic, informed about the new activity in the topic.
The problem with that "awesome" feature is that we can't unsubscribe the topic anymore. If I participate in a long thread and after some point I am no longer interested in that topic, I still have that topic on my "unread replies" feature. That could be improved, something instead of unread replies like unread subscribed topics, and making a replied topic automatically a subscribed one that one could remove that subscription later.
I agree. That's the subject of another feature request, but anyway you're right: turning the default behavior into a more subscription-like feature makes much more helpful, with only the option to unsubscribe even.
Quote from: HecKel on November 13, 2011, 01:19:34 PM
The problem with that "awesome" feature is that we can't unsubscribe the topic anymore. If I participate in a long thread and after some point I am no longer interested in that topic, I still have that topic on my "unread replies" feature. That could be improved, something instead of unread replies like unread subscribed topics, and making a replied topic automatically a subscribed one that one could remove that subscription later.
Yes, this would be better IMO.
"unread replies" replaced by "watched topics". You can subscribe yourself. You subscribe (by default) when you reply. You can unsubscribe at any time. You can subscribe someone to a topic by tagging them.
Users can have the options to only allow their buddies to tag them in a topic.
In addition to "show watched (or subscribed) topics" (similar to the current "new replies to your posts"), we could have a new view -- "Where have I been tagged".
Even "Where has (user) been tagged".
These kind of views could start to look very different from how a forum is now organized. People might start to care less about boards and categories.
I found this thread through googling for "smf mod mention notification" so, naturally, I think it's a good idea.
I'd go for both a panel and email notification, since email will be more effective in driving participation.
Instead of bbcodes, would it be possible to tag someone a la Facebook with the '@' symbol?
I would imagine it would be nice to give you a "tag" button so you could choose an actual member from the list.
But I am not a dev.
Good idea
I like the way google+ works - it detects when you pres the + key and then starts a autosuggest lookup.
Oh, this is indeed great (fB does that too with '@') but I would think it's a serious piece of coding...
I like the idea. I also like the thought having the member name in BB code so you can maybe click their name and go to their profile from the post text.
Will be great if there's a mention function as standard. Now I'm searching for such mod, but can't find anything... :(
What a useless idea, this!
If I want to point someone to somewhere, I'd PM them if I REALLY thought it was nessescary.
Akyhne, come on. There's no need to bash peoples opinions quite that brutally.
I'm not bashing anyones opinion. I'm just saying this is a pointless mod to develop as an official mod, in my opinion.
I don't mind people liking the idea, in contrary. What works for them, works for them.
But I think there are lots of other issues or ideas that are far more important to take care of in the SMF software.
Akyhne, none said that this feature request or mod request accepted officially. You are simply thinking one way, maybe SMF team will not convert this idea into modification or feature but maybe someone likes the idea and start working on it.
I don't understand how an idea that someone finds useful is dismissed as "useless" in such a way by someone else. Or, how asking for something means that we think it's the most important thing ever.
It'd be very nice to have such a functionality built-in, but no reason to become agitated about it...
I'll give an example why I need it. I'm the chairman and admin of a national automotive club where we have a topic named "I saw you" (something like that, it's not in English). So, the idea of the topic is that if someone sees you or any of your cars to write there something like "Yesterday I saw Pyrhel's '85 on xxx street racing an M-power. Who won? :P" And because some of the people stay more time under their cars instead online, they can't reply :)
BTW, I found a cheap mod: http://www.monotiz.com/smf/index.php?topic=3.0 but it doesn't work :D
Pyrhel, nice find that mod, but it's subscription-based? Says it has a "duration" of one year... ugh.
And while you might find this useful for your specific forum, I think that most would not... which makes this definite mod material. :)
Although I don't think the vast majority of admins/users would find it useful, the argument as you put it is a no-go: I bet there are dozens of features most people don't use ;) This doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.
But yes, I agree with you.
Quote from: Antes on November 18, 2012, 03:31:19 AM
Akyhne, none said that this feature request or mod request accepted officially. You are simply thinking one way, maybe SMF team will not convert this idea into modification or feature but maybe someone likes the idea and start working on it.
Quote from: Dzonny on September 27, 2011, 05:56:40 PM
The development team is considering adding "Notify user when name is mentioned" in future versions.
Quote from: Gryzor on November 18, 2012, 03:42:31 AM
I don't understand how an idea that someone finds useful is dismissed as "useless" in such a way by someone else. Or, how asking for something means that we think it's the most important thing ever.
WHAT?! I can not have the opinion the feature is useless?
Quote from: Akyhne on November 18, 2012, 08:45:28 AM
WHAT?! I can not have the opinion the feature is useless?
Ohhh dear. Listen, when you express your opining in a "What a useless idea, this!" way, you do understand you're heading into a flame, right? Basic social skills, is all.
No, you don't get it and it's my fault. I could just have clarified what I ment by useless.
"I don't like it" = I don't like it.
"I wouldn't use it" = I wouldn't use it, I wouldn't activate or install such a feature. I see no point.
"What a useless idea" = I don't like the idea, I hate it. I would never install or activate it. I wouldn't even sign up in a forum where such a feature existed. I don't use FB, Twitter or any social sites (except G+ a bit). I would *never* bother my members with such a feature. I would install social media login and likes, share etc., if they asked me to, but not this feature! Never! The team should use their energy on something else, that this feature.
That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it!
Of course you're entitled to your idea, but be careful how you express it.
Also, I don't see what this has to do with social media etc. Just because a similar functionality exists in SocM it doesn't mean the forum mod would have anything to do with it. It's like saying "social media have pictures, BAN ALL THE PICS! NEVER!".
Nor does it have anything to do with "bothering" members, if it's an opt-in option.
Quote from: Gryzor on November 18, 2012, 10:37:38 AM
Of course you're entitled to your idea, but be careful how you express it.
Well, I learned to talk like this, when I was on the team.
Quote from: Gryzor on November 18, 2012, 10:37:38 AM
Also, I don't see what this has to do with social media etc.
It has everything to do with social media. One of the big differences between forums and social media sites, is that in a forum you choose where and what you want to participate in.
Quote from: Gryzor on November 18, 2012, 10:37:38 AMNor does it have anything to do with "bothering" members, if it's an opt-in option.
If I can be "tagged" or bothered this way, without me wanting to, then I'd never see it implemented. If people can choose not to be tagged with this feature, then the feature is pointless. People can just PM the person then.
Let's say this feature was implemented. Someone can write a tag or something else, like @Akyhne, then I'm notified automatically by PM: "User xx has tagged you to the topic 454019".
I then visit the topic or post and then what? What if I can't see or understand why someone brought me there or if I don't want to participate in the debate? Do *I* then have to create a PM to the guy, saying "NOMB" or "Why did you want me to read that?"?
That's pointless! If someone wants to drag my attention to a post or a topic, I expect them to PM me, explaining why and what it is about and why I should be bothered.
A PM button next to each post, where people can quickly PM me about the topic, fine with me. But an auto message is pointless.
*sigh*... again, an opt-in feature.
And, again, social media have pictures. PMs, too, come to think of it. Should we ban them in SMF? Not to mention that a forum IS a social medium, you know. I've been around since the days of FIDOnet, and I used to chuckle whenever the term "social media" was thrown around referring to Facebook or MySpace (RIP).
I think you're making a lot of fuss about a very little thing...
Quote from: Gryzor on November 18, 2012, 11:52:07 AM
*sigh*... again, an opt-in feature.
... which makes it pointless, then.
Forum:
1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
3. a public meeting place for open discussion
So a forum is not nessescarily about being social, it's about being able to discuss in a public or closed group of people.
FB is nothing about anything else, than being social.
Forums have been around for 1000's of years. Their purpose hasn't changed with the internet. They still work the same way, the definition is still the same.
From Wikipedia:
QuoteA bulletin board (pinboard, pin board, noticeboard, or notice board in British English) is a surface intended for the posting of public messages, for example, to advertise items wanted or for sale, announce events, or provide information
QuoteInternet forums are becoming a global replacement for traditional bulletin boards. Online bulletin boards are sometimes referred to as message boards. The terms bulletin board, message board and even Internet forum are interchangeable, although often one bulletin board or message board can contain a number of Internet forums or discussion groups. An online board can serve the same purpose as a physical bulletin board.
So forums are not about being social, but it doesn't hurt to be ;)
A forum not social?
Opt-in = useless?
By gawd, I don't know where you're coming from, but that's enough discussion for me :D Why don't you go troll somewhere else? You've made your opinion crystal clear, please let us discuss about the feature *we* want.
Quote from: Gryzor on November 18, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
Why don't you go troll somewhere else?
Is that being social? Mind you, I haven't said anything bad about you or anyone else in this topic, dude! Your comment *is* trolling and is not concidered being nice!
Infact, you can get a warning around here, for such comments. 3 warnings and you are out!
Quote from: Akyhne on November 18, 2012, 10:17:42 AM
"I don't like it" = I don't like it.
"I wouldn't use it" = I wouldn't use it, I wouldn't activate or install such a feature. I see no point.
"What a useless idea" = I don't like the idea, I hate it. I would never install or activate it. I wouldn't even sign up in a forum where such a feature existed. I don't use FB, Twitter or any social sites (except G+ a bit). I would *never* bother my members with such a feature. I would install social media login and likes, share etc., if they asked me to, but not this feature! Never! The team should use their energy on something else, that this feature.
That's exactly how I would describe:
* the calendar
* post moderation and warnings
* paid subscriptions
* advanced profile fields
* karma (well, that should be the first of the list :P)
* search engine tracking
* attachments
even so, I'm not here saying the previous developers wasted their time implementing those features.
There are people that wanted these things and that still enjoy them. The same is/will be for this one.
Though I hope someone will implement it as mod before the "next" SMF. :P
Thanks, emanuele, for restoring some of my faith in humanity.
PS ooh 2.1 is out?! Oh wait, I've seen that :D
"other forums" have this feature.
I don't know the performance cost of this feature, but I can well imagine that keeping it reasonable might require giving some thought to how the database and software are structured. Which would argue that, even if it would be a mod, some required 'back-office" stuff might have to be built into the base product to make it reasonable.
Would be the same as Facebook tagging a user in a post. Don't see why this wouldn't at least be a good mod for starters.
Yup, like PMs are like Facebook's Messages, like image embedding is like image sharing/posting, etc etc. The usefulness, while not for everyone, is pretty self-evident...
I'm with that tagging too. Provided the tagging will not be listed as tagged until the tagged person approved it. The user should also be allowed to set himself as untaggable, he chose to be.
Quote from: Ahmad Rasyid Ismail on November 28, 2012, 01:38:17 AM
I'm with that tagging too. Provided the tagging will not be listed as tagged until the tagged person approved it. The user should also be allowed to set himself as untaggable, he chose to be.
Oh yes, it goes without saying that the user should have total control over it.
Total control? IMO that is privacy matter.
Erm...
Actually it's not a privacy issue, because even if there's no tagging you can still mention a user's name or link to his profile, I don't see how *notifying* the user would be a privacy issue? It's more of a preference issue - someone may be annoyed if he's notified every time he's tagged. Unless we're talking about different things.
But, anyhow, I mean that the user should have total control on whether he's taggable or not, on whether he receives notifications or not, so I guess this covers your concern.
You already answer it yourself. That is privacy because you should be able to choose whether or not you want to be tagged. No tagging = no notification. You can be tagged for something you don't like or hate or want to avoid, if that option is not there. So, if you can approve or disapprove it, your will be able to avoid unnecessary tagging and maintain your privacy.
What are you talking about? :) It seems like you're equating option with privacy. As I said, maybe we're talking about different things, but here the issue is not about privacy but of annoyance.
Unless you mean 'privacy' in the hotel's "please do not disturb" manner, but this is not what is meant by "online privacy"...
Your opinion is yours. I have been using facebook for quite some times and that is considered as privacy there. I don't have to explain myself but tagging people without their approval infringe their "privacy" whether that word is defined differently by you or not.
Not really. Privacy on Facebook has to do with revealing, publicly, things about you. Thus, there's a leak of private (=privacy) information to the public, and it can be sensitive, like being tagged in a photo that is public or being mentioned in a political debate. This is so because someone can search for your name and see the tags; since posts are not searchable, without a tag this would not happen.
In the forum, now, tagging someone reveals nothing. All posts are searchable, so regardless of whether you mention someone's name ("Hey, Ahmad Rasyid Ismail, what do you think about that?") or use a tagging function ("Hey, @Ahmad_Rasyid_Ismail, blahblahblah) it makes not an iota of difference. The only functionality that tagging adds is that you, the tagged member, will be notified about it. Other than that, there's no privacy issue since the system reveals just as much information about you with a tag or without it.
Sure, you don't have to "explain yourself", but again, I have a feeling we may be talking about different tagging functionality.
That is a simple use of tagging that you choose for an example. Let's say that there is a post or a picture about a religious cause which is clearly against a Jewish or a Muslim member principles. He is tagged in that post and he is notified. But he doesn't want to be tagged in such a post or picture. Yet people will see his name is there as it is being tagged without his consent. His name is suddenly tagged in a cause which he religiously against. And you say this is a matter of option and not privacy? I'd say it is his privacy and he are not to be tagged by anyone unless he say that somebody can tag him for that (and that only). Breaching that is breaching his privacy.
If you say he can untag himself after being notified, than he'd better be given the choice not to be tagged at the first instance. Otherwise, he would be tagged against his will or consent for some period of time especially when he is offline when he was tagged until he is later online again and untag himself for such a post or picture.
I see what you mean, but again, the tagging function doesn't make ANY difference. Can't you see that I can just mention you under the offensive photo? I don't need to 'tag' you! And since all posts are searchable and treated the same (no private posts), it doesn't make any difference for you!
In facebook it's different because even if I mention you in a post, say under an offensive picture, someone else CANNOT just search for your name and see the it if there's no tag. It works totally differently.
Say I post an offensive religious picture in the forum. I put your name under it. Someone can search the entire forum (or the internet) for your name and find it under the picture. Putting or removing a TAG will not change that.
Now, let's go to Facebook. You can't search for posts contents. So if I put your name under the photo in a post, just by searching for your name won't do anything because your name is part of the post as plain text. If I tag it, however, it's a whole different creature. And if I search for the *person* Ahmad, I will see that post too because it'll be attached to you.
See? Different.
Quote from: Ahmad Rasyid Ismail on November 29, 2012, 03:38:29 AM
That is a simple use of tagging that you choose for an example. Let's say that there is a post or a picture about a religious cause which is clearly against a Jewish or a Muslim member principles. He is tagged in that post and he is notified. But he doesn't want to be tagged in such a post or picture. Yet people will see his name is there as it is being tagged without his consent. His name is suddenly tagged in a cause which he religiously against. And you say this is a matter of option and not privacy? I'd say it is his privacy and he are not to be tagged by anyone unless he say that somebody can tag him for that (and that only). Breaching that is breaching his privacy.
If you say he can untag himself after being notified, than he'd better be given the choice not to be tagged at the first instance. Otherwise, he would be tagged against his will or consent for some period of time especially when he is offline when he was tagged until he is later online again and untag himself for such a post or picture.
Funny... Making nonsense to me, your example is way too irrelevant (its a direct attack to beliefs, i think its not proper for religious people to wander around there if they are allowing those kinda shares) - also options has to be added, example;
Tagging/Mentioning
Who can tag/mention you?
- Anyone
- Only Friends
- Only Moderators
- None
Quote from: Antes on November 29, 2012, 05:40:55 AM
Tagging/Mentioning
Who can tag/mention you?
- Anyone
- Only Friends
- Only Moderators
- None
Good idea!
Is this being added or what? I would love to have this. :) is this gonna be like a feature in SMF or a mod?
Almost definitely a mod.
Well, even as a mod it'd be nice :)
Technically this board is/was for features intended for future versions of SMF, and since that topic is "tagged" 3.0 the idea was to have it as feature in 3.0.
But now you guys are gonna make it as a mod...? :)
Anyone can make it as a mod, you should not wait for us! ;)
Haha, Anyone but me. :p
Why not? :P
It may be a good way to learn a bit a lot of php and javascript! ;D
Yeah when i grow up though....
I think this would be a great addition and I'd love to see it!
Its used on a different style forum where the members can write @user and it sends them a notification that they've been 'summoned' to a thread, which is how most people use it. I think it is very handy and very useful and I'd love to be able to use it on SMF.
Where do i sign :D
I would love to have this feature and would absolutely install it on my forums.
has anyone try this ?
http://www.monotiz.com/smf/index.php?topic=3.0
"Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic. "
This implement is way over due. I have been searching for this type of notify for a long time. please make the effort to add this thank you.
It isn't going to happen before 3.0, sorry.
Is there any Mod's you know of that does such a thing?
Not that are currently available.
Dam that's a shame. Are community is getting big and this option would be great. We had initially used Vb. where they have the notify option it was really nice. May I ask why you guys have not implemented this?
http://clanxa.com/smf/index.php (http://clanxa.com/smf/index.php)
Because there's no notifications system for it. Unless you want every notification to be an email (which has all kinds of consequences on its own), you don't have any choice.
2.1 is in development, it will NOT have this mostly because there is still no notification system at this time for reasons I really don't want to get into, so the problem remains.
Please do not try to convince me to add it to 2.1 because it isn't going to happen unless people want 2.1 delayed yet another year while an alerts-like system (like XenForo has) gets implemented, tested etc. and I'm pretty sure people would rather not have to wait another year, especially for a feature that has non trivial performance concerns to be taken on board.
With the most utter respect. Can are community offer you funding to create us a Mod?
Um, no? Because as I said you need so much more than *just* the mention bit, you need an entire notification system around it and SMF just doesn't have one.
Such a mod would be very expensive and require much work to get right, at least custom built for your forum.
I did a search and found http://www.smfpacks.com/alertmod which may or may not suit you (and there have been concerns over the mod developer's support policies)
I understand thank you for the replys and info you have provided.
P.S I looked at the pack you researched. I'm looking for a simple notifier where you can mark a member "QQless" [QQless] etc..