MeTa "notify this user" pony

August 12, 2002 11:25 AM

This is actually a MetaTalk feature request. When creating a thread about a specific post or user (e.g., 1, , 3) courtesy dictates that the singled-out member be notified. But I don't know how often that happens. How about an optional field, when creating a new MetaTalk thread, reading "Notify these users". The thread creator could then enter one or more usernames and/or usenumbers, separated by commas. When the thread is created, the specified users (assuming their email address are available) would receive an automated email reading something to the effect of "You have been asked to participate in MetaTalk thread xxxxx."
posted by Shadowkeeper to Feature Requests at 11:25 AM (21 comments total)

I think the consensus of most of the recent threads was that we shouldn't ask Matt to hardcode features that, in the long run, would be better off co-opted by a responsible user base acting in the best interests of the community.

In other words, if people want to call someone out to Metatalk, they should take the time to send the courtesy of a personal e-mail to that person explaining what's going on (and, hopefully, fostering a private dialogue that can end up supplanting future public Metatalk threads.)

For those who have not made e-mail addresses available in their user profiles, I do support the coding an e-mail relay feature that would enable people to still be contacted.
posted by PrinceValium at 11:57 AM on August 12, 2002

In other words, if people want to call someone out to Metatalk, they should take the time to send the courtesy of a personal e-mail to that person explaining what's going on (and, hopefully, fostering a private dialogue that can end up supplanting future public Metatalk threads.)

Please, Lord, let people read this and take it to heart. I would even recommend CC-ing Matt when you do this, just so he knows what's up as well. Best MeTa comment in a long, long, while.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:04 PM on August 12, 2002

In other words, if people want to call someone out to Metatalk, they should take the time to send the courtesy of a personal e-mail to that person explaining what's going on (and, hopefully, fostering a private dialogue that can end up supplanting future public Metatalk threads.)

I'd take it one step further: do this before airing it out at MetaTalk. You might find that it obviates the need for a thread altogether.

posted by pardonyou? at 12:45 PM on August 12, 2002

I think that was the implication, pardonyou. It was mine anyway. And, as an addendum to my previous statement:

I would even recommend CC-ing Matt when you do this, AND any other involved parties, where applicable.

I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that MeTa is abused and that there are far too many posts of the whiny nature. Self-policing doesn't necessarily have to be done in public, it can be done via e-mail. Of course, we need to get it through the heads of some that only people with a vested interest in the error/offending statement/etc. have the right to complain about it anyways, lest we get a whole bunch of this:

SO and So said this HERE, so I'm calling them out in this thread.

and then the first comment is...

Thanks, but we already took care of it via e-mail.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:57 PM on August 12, 2002

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Obviously I totally agree.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:10 PM on August 12, 2002

consider yourself, uh, pardoned
No sweat.
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:53 PM on August 12, 2002

Those without registered e-mail addresses make both approaches impossible.
posted by dhartung at 3:48 PM on August 12, 2002

relying on email rather than metatalk may work for some threads, but it poses several potential problems:

1. metatalk is the conscience of metafilter. matt himself once astutely pointed out that metafilter is successful without moderation because it relies on a system of public shaming. being called out in metatalk is the equivalent of spending the morning in the stocks at the town square. private email lacks this social force and is therefore far more likely to be ignored.
2. or, if it's not ignored, an email exchange criticizing a person's behavior on metafilter could very easily dissolve into a nasty flamewar. the more 'public' nature of metatalk tends to keep discussions somewhat civil. a post on metatalk somehow seems less 'personal' than an email saying 'hey, bozo, cut it out'.
3. and one of the reasons for this civility is that metatalk threads generally look at a person's behavior in a more 'macro' context. rare are the metatalk threads that say simply 'foo is misbehaving'; more common are threads that say 'i don't think this type of behavior is appropriate; how does the rest of the community feel?' metatalk is not so much about ending specific behavior(s) by specific user(s) as it is about setting policy and community standards for the site as a whole.

so, email is a good idea, but it's no replacement for metatalk. even though they sometimes get whiny or may seem like pointless navel-gazing, all of these discussions about the nature and direction of our community do actually help to make metafilter a better place.
posted by mlang at 3:52 PM on August 12, 2002

dhartung, a couple of fixes would take care of this. The ethics and practicality of such a thing are up to debate, but here goes:

- Metafilter should validate e-mail addresses of new signups (this may already be done with the new batch of users, I'm not sure) and re-validate existing users (with e-mailless users being notified of this with big bold text on the Mefi front page.)

- Aliases could redirect mail to users who wish to keep their e-mail addys private. For example, suppose User #20874 (who doesn't exist, to keep this hypothetical) uses the email [e-mail] but does not show his/her email address to other users in the user profile. I could then send an email to [e-mail], and the server would redirect it to [e-mail] and cc [e-mail]. (To keep it abuse-free, the bot would not disguise the address of the sender, and it would automagically reject and bounce any e-mails sent to one of these aliases whose From: header does not match an e-mail address in the Mefi userbase.)

Mlang -- agreed, but the instigator should use discretion in determining whether or not it is relevant to Metatalk. If user foo pisses you off on Tuesday and pisses me off on Wednesday, we probably wouldn't benefit from two separate metatalk threads. The redundancy of posts on Metatalk diminish its impact (and I think is what implicitly many of us have been complaining about the past few weeks.)
posted by PrinceValium at 4:51 PM on August 12, 2002

I actually disagree with this. I'm certainly not opposed to a "courtesy notification" to the party whose behavior on the board is being discussed, but I don't see it as a critical step, either.

1) It implies that it is the person who is being complained about, when in fact it is an example of bad behavior/behavior contrary to the values/principles of Metafilter that is being highlighted.

2) Things are brought to MetaTalk more for the benefit of the 14,000+ OTHER members of the site than for the single transgressor. Sure, it would be nice if after hearing arguments against that sort of behavior, and perceiving that the majority of the community here was against it, the person would refrain from such behaviors in future. And sometimes they do (often, they don't). But I think the greater value is in bringing the issue into the light, getting people thinking about and discussing it, so that perhaps dozens or more future incidents from OTHER users are avoided, and we all stand more enlightened. Therefore, I think this statement, "Self-policing doesn't necessarily have to be done in public, it can be done via e-mail" is wrong, because although there are times when it is better to email someone directly, the benefit to the community of posting it publicly will be lost by this method.

3) Sending a notice to the person whose comments you have posted to MetaTalk is inevitably going to increase the sense of "nyah, nyah, I told on you! yer gonna get it now!"

4) While any MetaFilter member is, of course, free to read/not read MetaTalk as they choose, I think a responsible community member will already be reading it in order to assess the community standards and issues. Even for one who does read it, it is certainly easy to miss a single topic, but them's the breaks.

Basically, I think it is important to remember that Metafilter is not a group of 10 people yakking at one another, however it may seem so at times, and that if someone is doing something harmful to the community, it is reasonable to assume that there are at least a dozen more on the verge of doing so who might be persuaded not to by a community outcry against the first offense.
posted by rushmc at 5:37 PM on August 12, 2002

If user foo pisses you off on Tuesday and pisses me off on Wednesday, we probably wouldn't benefit from two separate metatalk threads.

Except that one has a responsibility to post to MetaTalk NOT when one is "pissed off," but when a community standard or value has been transgressed. And if Person A transgresses on Tuesday and then again on Wednesday, why should they get a free pass for the second offense? I think you're trying to make it about the user, when in fact it should be about behavior deemed inappropriate or undesirable.
posted by rushmc at 5:39 PM on August 12, 2002

(I just wanted to mention that this MetaMeta thread should be required reading for both new members and old, as a refresher course and review of the functions that MetaTalk is supposed to fulfill. Good stuff.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:31 PM on August 12, 2002

PrinceValium: the point of not putting in an email address is not to receive email, check? Even if an email were required for validation purposes, certain people may not want to receive unsolicited messages from other users. Anonymity has its values, even though I can't really see the point myself. I suppose I'm thinking about the recent spate of signing people up for nasty spam lists, but happily I'm not popular enough to have fallen foul. Other than that, I pretty much agree with rushmc here.
posted by walrus at 1:32 AM on August 13, 2002

By the way, Metafilter does not check your e-mail when you sign up. I took the liberty to be honest about it, BTW.
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:01 AM on August 13, 2002

But unless you're buddies with the sysop, or you signed up for multiple accounts, or actually lied about your email address, there's no way you would know that little tidbit.
posted by crunchland at 5:29 AM on August 13, 2002

Does Matt really need an Inboxful of cc's from people annoyed with various posts? That seems to punish him more than the offensive posters.
posted by picopebbles at 5:50 AM on August 13, 2002

Crunchland: If Metafilter doesn't send you a confirm-your-address e-mail when you join, it's clear that the site doesn't check for a valid address.
posted by rcade at 7:00 AM on August 13, 2002

Shadowkeeper: It's more efficient to keep you on as the notification guy, like you did for me. Saves all that extra coding, see ;-)
posted by wackybrit at 7:09 AM on August 13, 2002

Is there a problem with a simple "Metatalk" link in the thread in MeFi proper? It probably doesn't happen often enough, but presumably posters read threads they're active in, and will therefore see the link to the relevant discussion.
posted by cCranium at 8:21 AM on August 13, 2002

How about adding MetaTalk threads to trackback on MetaFilter?
posted by rcade at 8:33 AM on August 13, 2002

an automated email reading something to the effect of "You have been asked to participate in MetaTalk thread xxxxx."

Why? Are too many ignoring the "MeTalk" links cuz 2 or 3 people out of the 10K+ registered users are peeved?

posted by mischief at 8:37 AM on August 14, 2002