Deleting irrelevant alerts

Started by Arantor, April 07, 2022, 07:28:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


Today I got an alert for someone liking a post - only to note that they removed the like later. This happens for a variety of reasons (have done it myself)

But I think it is weird for the alert to stay when the action taken didn't. I propose if you unlike a post and the alert for it hasn't been read yet, remove the alert for it.

Quoting/mentioning is much harder, I'd suggest for those we remove the alert if the post is deleted prior to the alert recipient noticing it.
Holder of controversial views, all of which my own.


Wouldn't it be more helpful to know that someone did mark LIKE ... then UNLIKED?  I would think an alert showing that the post was LIKED then a separate alert showing the post was UNLIKED would be more insightful for the person receiving the alert.


Oh no, that way madness lies.

Right now, liking in particular checks if you have an unread like alert from the sender for the post - and if you like/unlike/relike in a short space of time you won't trigger the recipient being bombed with notifications.

But if you go down the road of unlike notifications, you kinda have to think about removing that safety valve which means you have to very carefully weigh up the implications.

Why do you need to consider it? Well, if I get like/unlike/relike, I don't want to see the net balance of "1 like, 1 unlike" alert because I really had 2 like alerts but the de-duplicate measure kicked in.

So we have to remove it then... at which point I can sit there and just keep clicking like/unlike/like unlike to spam you with notifications.
Holder of controversial views, all of which my own.


See... you know my users base.  They are VERY VERY happy with your mod that prevents alerts from going away.  We are very used to that behavior as our prior alerts system (SMFPacks Alerts for 2.0) did the same.

If you rate someone,  you get an alert saying so.  If you change your rating... you get an alert saying so.  If you unrate... you get an alert saying so.

The idea is "More information is better information".

I know it was beneficial to me to see where some folks may have rated and then changed rating ... or rated then unrated.

Now,  it's all about perspective and what you want the alerts system to be for you... but I can say for sure that my user group would prefer that our current rating system do the very same thing... but it doesn't (and the author is also thinking about "unalerting" which I am very much against as well!).


I guess we use the alerts system a little different than you do.  We'd prefer alerts NEVER go away on their own... it's unnatural to us.   So this little tweak goes further in that direction (which is,  apparently,  180 degrees from how you (and others here) see the alert systems usefulness.)


I actually resent the last implication, as though I'm somehow "different" or "special" in my use, and the implication that it was designed "incorrectly".

I didn't design it based on guesswork, I went and studied how other platforms did it back then, and since, and I studied how people interacted with the idea on both smaller and larger platforms. But sure, let's assume that I just pushed my personal agenda and preferences into the mix and decided for everyone and people agree with me out of fear. (Because this is what I've been told over the years. You're not the first, you won't be the last, and I sometimes wonder why I ever bothered.)

Suggestion withdrawn.
Holder of controversial views, all of which my own.


My apologies... I did not intend to insult you at all.  We (my users and I) obviously are used to a way that the alerts worked for us prior.  We had the old alerts system for years.  When we switched to 2.1.x the way it worked changed and my users (and I) did not like the change.  This is the absolute truth. 

I was simply pointing out that you (and the SMF team it seems) look at the alerts system differently than we do (evidently).  This isn't necessarily a BAD thing... and I didn't intend to convey that I thought it was a "bad" thing,  so I am confused by your resentment... but you can not argue that our point of view on how it works and should work is "different" from yours and the SMF team.

I am sure that if the original alerts system that we'd been using for years performed in the way you envision,  we'd be used to that and would likely advocate it's functionality from that perspective.

I truly do apologize that I offended you.  That was not my intent... at all.  I'm simply conveying the perspective of myself and the vast majority of the users on my forum.

Again... I am sorry.


(NOTE: I would have edited my post above if I was able to)...

@Arantor ... think of it this way ... it's entirely possible/likely that it is us that is somehow "different" or "special".  And if that is the case... I embrace my/our "uniqueness"!



This is a good idea, @Arantor. I never noticed this before, but it does feel like a missing piece of the alerts system. It isn't technically a bug, but in my opinion it's right on the verge of being one. So if implementing this just requires an extra query or two at the right spot, as I expect, then I'd be glad to include it in a 2.1.x patch release.

Would you be willing to put together a pull request to implement this, Arantor?
I promise you nothing.

Sesqu... Sesqui... what?
Sesquipedalian, the best word in the English language.


Same applies for a moderation report, it gets closed but you still have the alert.


Quote from: Illori on April 07, 2022, 02:40:06 PMSame applies for a moderation report, it gets closed but you still have the alert.
Same happens if someone replies to a topic you're receiving alerts for and the reply gets deleted ...
Life doesn't have to be perfect to be wonderful ...

"Before you allow people access to your forum, especially in an administrative position, you must be aware that that person can seriously damage your forum. Therefore, you should only allow people that you trust, implicitly, to have such access." -Douglas


Bleh. I just looked closer at the relevant code myself, and yeah, it will be more complicated to implement this than I naively assumed. Basically, because issuing alerts is handled via background tasks, removing them also needs to be handled via background tasks or else we could easily end up with race conditions and inconsistent data.

Tracked in #7423.
I promise you nothing.

Sesqu... Sesqui... what?
Sesquipedalian, the best word in the English language.


FYI, @Arantor, I've started my own work on this now, so feel free to disregard my previous request for a PR.
I promise you nothing.

Sesqu... Sesqui... what?
Sesquipedalian, the best word in the English language.

Diego Andrés

@FrizzleFried is there a chance you missed the point?
Getting all the content is great or meh (depending on the user), but is not interesting or relevant to see content that doesn't actually exist anymore.

SMF Tricks - Free & Premium Responsive Themes for SMF.


@Diego Andrés ... maybe I am missing the point as you folks aren't the only ones who have argued this angle.  The person who created the ratings mod I use has the same point of view ... and questioned my request to have an "unrated" alert sent.

We (myself and many of my users) opinion is that we'd like to know as much as possible about what may have happened to our postss...

I would rather know that someone rated my post... then unrated it... than have zero alert and I remain completely unaware that it had been rated and then unrated.

From my perspective,  one method provides useful information while the other provides no information...

"Your post was rated." "Your post was unrated."  This tells me plenty... or CAN tell me plenty.

The other method... no alert at all... That tells me nothing and has no ability to convey any information.

That is my opinion.  It is,  evidently,  not shared by many it seems.

I can accept that.  It doesn't change my opinion though (to be 100% honest).

(EDIT: BTW ... the argument for my method is bolstered IMHO when you add things like "reaction" to the system.  There is something to be said for knowing someone "reacted" with one type of reaction... then "unrated" it... and then re-rated it something else.  It's not quite the same with just like/unlike).