Goodreads Feedback discussion

414 views
Suggestions & Questions > Mention other users in reviews

Comments Showing 1-50 of 73 (73 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Glen (new)

Glen (GlenKPeterson) | 3 comments It would nice to be able to @mention users in a review the way you do on Twitter. I often want to thank another user for an insight or book suggestion in my review and I don't know how to notify them that I'm saying something nice about them or giving them credit. Linking to someone else's review or review comment would work too I guess.


Elizabeth (Alaska) No to Twitter behavior, thank you.


message 3: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3457 comments Glen wrote: "It would nice to be able to @mention users in a review the way you do on Twitter. I often want to thank another user for an insight or book suggestion in my review and I don't know how to notify th..."

There is a section in the review that allows you to say who recommended the book to you. If you put that person's proper GR name, it usually alerts the member and it stays on the review;

EX: Recommended By ♆ BookAddict ✒ La Crimson Femme


message 4: by Glen (last edited Mar 07, 2018 11:13AM) (new)

Glen (GlenKPeterson) | 3 comments Wow - I like to think that given a few more years of using Goodreads I would have clicked the very tiny, pale, gray "More Details..." prompt to display this field. Realistically though, I might never have found it without you - thanks!


message 5: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3457 comments Glen wrote: "Wow - I like to think that given a few more years of using Goodreads I would have clicked the very tiny, pale, gray "More Details..." prompt to display this field. Realistically though, I might nev..."

Welcome!


Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (SusannaG) | 1836 comments Anything beyond the already existing "recommended by" form - no thank you.


message 7: by Alexandra (last edited Mar 07, 2018 02:14PM) (new)

Alexandra | 1262 comments Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "No to Twitter behavior, thank you."

Agreed. I have sometimes thanked another GR user in my review, and linked to their review of the book. It's easy to do, and it's gonna be people on my Friend list, so they'll see it in their Feed.

When you're writing a review you might click on (some html is ok) and look at the format for LINK. You can use that if you want, to spotlight someone's review or profile, but display the clickable text for the link as you want.

Example, you could say something like "Thanks, Mark, for bringing my attention to this awesome book!" where that text is a clickable link to their review.


message 8: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 1262 comments Glen wrote: "Wow - I like to think that given a few more years of using Goodreads I would have clicked the very tiny, pale, gray "More Details..." prompt to display this field. Realistically though, I might never have found it without you - thanks! "

haha! It is a handy little field :D


message 9: by Otis, Chief Goodreader (new)

Otis Chandler | 4185 comments Mod
I think having @mentions especially in comment threads like this is a great idea, but not one that has floated to the top of the priority list yet. It would make it so easy to pull people who are not yet in a comment thread into it. We will get to it at some point - and in meantime if you want it please continue to leave your feedback as it always helps.


message 10: by Scott (last edited Mar 13, 2018 04:11PM) (new)

Scott | 1163 comments Otis wrote: "I think having @mentions especially in comment threads like this is a great idea, but not one that has floated to the top of the priority list yet. It would make it so easy to pull people who are not yet in a comment thread into it..."

Are...are you serious? I don't want to be randomly drawn to threads that I am not already participating in, nor do I want my name to be used in any clickable way that I do not control.


Elizabeth (Alaska) Otis wrote: "I think having @mentions especially in comment threads like this is a great idea, but not one that has floated to the top of the priority list yet. It would make it so easy to pull people who are n..."

How about getting to some of those ideas you thought were great back in 2007-2010?


message 12: by Manybooks (new)

Manybooks | 4471 comments Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "No to Twitter behavior, thank you."

Ditto for me, no, no, no!!


message 13: by Otis, Chief Goodreader (new)

Otis Chandler | 4185 comments Mod
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "How about getting to some of those ideas you thought were great back in 2007-2010? "

The fun part of this job is that there are so many good ideas out there to improve Goodreads! And we are getting to many of them. But it will take us 10 more years to get to all of the ones I've thought of so far. And I'm sure we will think of more in that time too!


message 14: by Manybooks (last edited Mar 13, 2018 04:05PM) (new)

Manybooks | 4471 comments Otis wrote: "I think having @mentions especially in comment threads like this is a great idea, but not one that has floated to the top of the priority list yet. It would make it so easy to pull people who are n..."

There is a reason why many of us do not use Twitter. It would ne nice to keep GR Twitter free for as long as possible.


Elizabeth (Alaska) Otis wrote: "The fun part of this job is that there are so many good ideas out there to improve Goodreads! And we are getting to many of them. But it will take us 10 more years to get to all of the ones I've thought of so far. And I'm sure we will think of more in that time too! "

Then please quit saying this kind of thing is the thing in GR's future. We want functionality like Boolean shelves. And Group shelf improvement.

And in the meantime, you've been doing things to GR's detriment. And you know how much I love this site, I just hate seeing it go down the drain.


Dannie  *migraine in 5..4..3..* (Dannie_evans) | 989 comments Please don't even consider this. It just opens users up to more of the unwelcomed contact by the users they have blocked. It's bad enough that feeds can no longer be set to filter those out, but to provide a way they could just @name to trigger contact is worse.

How about focusing on fixing all the broken features so many of us can go back to being able to use the site fully again?


message 17: by lethe (new)

lethe | 1595 comments I just heard that one of the most active members was booted off the Feedback Group. Can it really be because of their comments in this thread? Because if it is, that is some serious abuse of power. Do we really want this group to turn into some kind of dictatorship, where everybody is afraid to speak their mind?

Yes, the user was critical, but with good reason, and I am sure Otis can handle criticism and doesn't need to be shielded from critical, long-time members. Was he even informed that this was going to happen?


message 18: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3457 comments lethe wrote: "I just heard that one of the most active members was booted off the Feedback Group. Can it really be because of their comments in this thread? Because if it is, that is some serious abuse of power...."

Whom?


Orinoco Womble (tidy bag and all) | 115 comments You say you "heard" it. In the sense of found out it was true, or heard a rumour?

Check your sources, would be my first reaction.


message 20: by lethe (new)

lethe | 1595 comments MrsJoseph wrote: "Whom?"

I was asked not to name names, as it is against the rules of this group. But the comments are in response to Otis, upthread.


message 21: by [deleted user] (new)

Wow. Thanks for sharing the news. I witnessed her solve many issues often when no other help was coming and her lack of participation in this group will be noticed and a loss. IMO


message 22: by lethe (new)

lethe | 1595 comments Orinoco Womble (tidy bag and all) wrote: "You say you "heard" it. In the sense of found out it was true, or heard a rumour?

Check your sources, would be my first reaction."


Eh. I heard it from the user in question. Is that good enough?


message 23: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3457 comments lethe wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Whom?"

I was asked not to name names, as it is against the rules of this group. But the comments are in response to Otis, upthread."


I was really hoping that was not the case.

I'm...flabbergasted. Beyond flabbergasted.


message 24: by lethe (new)

lethe | 1595 comments Corinne wrote: "Wow. Thanks for sharing the news. I witnessed her solve many issues often when no other help was coming and her lack of participation in this group will be noticed and a loss. IMO"

Thanks Corinne, she will be glad to hear that.


message 25: by Manybooks (last edited Mar 14, 2018 07:27PM) (new)

Manybooks | 4471 comments So now we know!! I am so angry that I will not say anything, as I would probably get the same approach as ...


message 26: by Emily, Community Manager (new)

Emily (emilyfortner) | 875 comments Mod
Everyone, please keep to the topic of the original post so that we can keep the discussion going.

Also, it's important to note that we do not discuss actions regarding other members in the group.


message 27: by Kelly (and the Book Boar) (last edited Mar 14, 2018 01:55PM) (new)

Kelly (and the Book Boar) | 63 comments I haven't been on here forever and what a day to pop over (I'll slap my hand over my mouth in hopes that I can stay on topic but I will say I have ZERO interest in Boolean shelves or any other librarian functions so not everyone is on board with everyone else's input). I am the first to say this is GR's sandbox and I just play in it (for free) so even though I wouldn't really enjoy being "@-ed at" (for lack of a better term), I frequently link to another user's review in MY reviews via html code in order to give credit where credit is due regarding who twisted my arm and got me to read any given book. 100% of the time their reviews are the ones who should receive the "likes" rather than mine so I try to direct others to them.


message 28: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Mar 14, 2018 03:36PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) | 10 comments Goodreads does not need to be more like Twitter.

What? @ someone because you lost their attention? Because they chose to stop following a thread and you want to call them back to it? Because no one is paying attention to your thread announcing release of your book so you can @ them to it? Not reading your review or stopped commenting when the comment section got nasty with trolls so you want to @ them back?

Just what would the @ be for? Could everyone @ everyone? Would it be optionally restricted to friends (who would already be seeing each other's posts and able to message each other to draw attention to one or more without the @ feature)?

If you block someone, would they still be able to @ you? Would there be any limits on how many times someone could @ you in a certain time period?

Could it be used to get around not being able to message someone who set their inbox to friends only?

Would there be limits on how many goodreads members someone could @ at a time or during a period of time (like currently the number you can message is limited)?

Would some @ mentions be flaggable as spam? Would spammers use the @ feature to get around message limits and areas of goodreads spam can be flagged? Would trolls blocked be endlessly @'ing folk they still want to stalk?

If I want to point out something to a fellow goodreader, unless they chose more privacy, I can send them a message or comment in some of our shared groups. I don't need to @ them to draw their attention to a thread they may not want to follow -- or even deliberately dropped out of where @'ing them back to it is just annoying.

Twitter is twitter. Facebook is Facebook. Some people love and others hate many of those social media features where they will or won't use them much -- I think both have gotten very hard to find what you want on their feeds with a zillion annoying ways to bother you, bury your stuff in sponsored stuff or share you out (it's as silly, for example, that goodreads takes the shelving or reading of a book where someone clearly loathed the thing, out in the feed as "recommend this because your friend xyz read/shelved" as it is that Facebook adds to ads that my friend xyz clicked on that ad).

Goodreads has changed to really bury reader activity and voices I used to enjoy here. Even the author blog's I was happy to follow all in one place on goodreads are no longer useful or enjoyable (the still not fixed changes to how we follow/friend them ruin that). The updates feed changed to be Facebook-y and even Tumblr-y with so much sponsored content and huge book details burying reviews from friends and things I used to readily see on my updates.

IMHO, it needs to remember it's a site for readers. Newbie readers and authors need better information and help -- possibly tutorials -- for getting around so many features here; more so than here-let's-bulk-find friends and books for you without exploring the site. Let's @ you to draw your attention to a discussion on the book I am selling or back to that thread you stepped away from or onto my review I want to call your attention to. Many of us want less commercial content and contact with more privacy controls. It doesn't need more ways to poke at us -- frankly, needs to instead respect our email settings and stop opting us into things rather than letting us decide to opt into new things. To not ignore or let go on long term when we report bugs and problems. Keep in mind it's not that unlikely that readers may very well be here to catalog their reads, review books and find new books and fellow readers/reviewers that strike a chord to friend, follow, join group discussions -- not in bulk because want to spam ... er ... market to or shout out to but because of some actual interest (not necessarily just shared taste in books) or to be @'d at.

(As to the rumored kicked out of group person I think it is, petty to kick out over this -- I personally had them blocked but found them a mix of often helpful, often too tunneled in on how they use /feel / prioritize goodreads stuff (stubbornly cheerleading while hundreds swear something is busted or stubbornly sticking to their comment swearing to things everyone can prove wrong like the notion that kindles read ePub files and always have) and often nasty enough to other commenters that in that instance they should have been kicked off where I did block them. Over everything I read upstream -- nope, if true and who I think it is, a petty overreaction. They were pretty relentlessly pro-goodreads even when made no sense, your biggest fan and biggest cheerleader even at their very worst. Rumored of course, for all .i know they left of own accord or it wasn't even about who I think it was ).


message 29: by Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ (last edited Mar 14, 2018 03:59PM) (new)

Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂  | 1963 comments @ Kelly (hahahaha @ Kelly - I kill me) that is the way I handle things - when I remember!

@ Debbie I agree with all your points about this Twitterish idea. Also if it goes ahead you would need to ask the members who regularly top the US/World lists how they would feel about it.Would they be notified about every single tweet???


message 30: by Aerulan (new)

Aerulan | 1157 comments Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) wrote: "Goodreads does not need to be more like Twitter.

What? @ someone because you lost their attention? Because they chose to stop following a thread and you want to call them back to it? Because no on..."



Well said, Debbie.
This trend of GR continually limiting and reducing members ability exercise control over what they see on goodreads, usually in favor of forced interaction with GR chosen elements instead, is bad enough. But granting more ability for others to hijack our attention and direct it where they want, would make a bad situation even worse and be the complete opposite of improvement.


message 31: by lethe (last edited Mar 14, 2018 04:04PM) (new)

lethe | 1595 comments Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) wrote: "Rumored of course, for all .i know they left of own accord or it wasn't even about who I think it was"

I said upthread I heard it from the user. They received an email from GR.


I have never used Twitter and judging from what I read in this thread, I don't want these @ links implemented here.


message 32: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Mar 14, 2018 04:47PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) | 10 comments Would the @ mentions show on our profiles?

Like (if in a review or anywhere else on goodreads they could use the @ to mention a user by name) if someone commented @'ing you on a review or elsewhere talking about other favorite books, would your profile then be showing those favorite books and sharing out on the feed to all your friends and followers? If so, would we have the option to block such things from our profiles or to delete them afterwards (even Facebook, unlike Twitter, still let's us decide who gets to post on our own timelines).

Or would the person @'d be the only one to see it? Would it clog our notifications?

What if @'ed in a private group -- would that work @'ing someone not a member? If the @ goes to their profile or in any way to the uodate feed, would the private group thread be quoted along with the @?

Would saying @xyz still work if xyz changed their name to be xyz-rocks-reading or would, we have to look up everyone's profile link to find their id number to use? If have to look up their goodreads link anyway, why not just cut and paste it into a comment or review without bothering with an @ feature?

Partially on topic for this thread, I do think the "(some HTML is ok)" and "add book/author" features could be better pointed out to new (and some existing members). Just putting a full link starting with http doesn't require any HTML coding because goodreads automatically makes it a clickable link -- a perfectly easy way to link to someone's profile. Additional coding can bury that link behind text like "xyz" with the current features here, not necessary to have a new @ code that may or may not be made more apparent to members. I'm more familiar with goodreads now but as a newbie it was a learning curve with lots of help from many people, including on these feedback threads.

ETA: I don't think I understand what the @ is supposed to add to link options already available (admittedly the "(some HTML is ok)" gets overlooked easily). If wanting to draw attention and "likes" to another reviewer's review because they led you to read the book -- isn't it better to just link directly to their review than to their profile with an @ option? I don't see the difference -- unless the @ will do more than just link to someone like grab their attention or publicize further -- between a potential @Otis and the existing Otis options (or I could make that say @Otis if I wanted the @ sign showing because used to Twitter or whatever).

It would be helpful, though, if we had a better way to find our comments on these threads and the followup comments. The reply feature quotes partially but doesn't link back to a specific comment (if someone deletes a comment the numbers change so saying "in response to comment #" gets confusing). If goodreads staff deletes an inappropriate post, I do wish they'd replace that same #'d comment with a "deleted comment" type of placeholder so everyone responding to it sound less strange--something I did like on Amazon forums.


☕ Lachgas ♿  (Lachgas) | 275 comments I do use twitter and I like it - and I'm ok with the @ there - but: contrary to GR the username is unique there, which is just not the case here.
That works with space for GR authors .... not always well and a lot of them do not even know about the way that works or don't understand it - so I really do not see a way that would work with way more usernames (often just one word)

And having that e.g. in the Librarians Group I would really dislike that (and I certainly won't have it in reviews and although it might be useful in comments I see a huge spam potential there) would just lead to impatient authors/users just adding all names they could actually see at page 1 or something like that.

In a small group that might work well and will be a nice addition but at the moment the cons do outweigh the pros for me.
(and to be honest, not sure if I would trust the developers to implement that - with all the difficulties like e.g. the same usernames - in a non buggy way)


message 34: by Aerulan (new)

Aerulan | 1157 comments Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) wrote: " I don't think I understand what the @ is supposed to add to link options already available..."

On another site which has a feature similar to what's being suggested (or my understanding of the suggestion) using @username would result in the member getting a notification/PM saying something along the lines of "Debbie's Spurts mentioned you in __________" with ___ being a link to their comment.
It would be a way of directly calling *your* attention to whatever you'd been @'d in.

Which could very quickly be misused on a site like GR that's already only doing the bare minimum when it comes to things like spam and blocking of harassers/harassment.


message 35: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Mar 14, 2018 05:15PM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) | 10 comments Both pm's and notifications, I think, could really get clogged with the @ mentions if everyone could @ everyone. (I'm assuming goodreads would at least block those we've blocked from @'ing us -- but not completley confident).

I can follow threads I want to (by individual email, by group email, or in my notifications). Unless they've set it to private because they don't want to be bothered , I can always message someone that I mentioned them with the link to the mention.

Rather than by pm, email or notifications, if this were ever implemented being available to every goodreads member to use -- I'd prefer it have its very own section (certainly not echoing out to my profile, my friends/followers, on the update feed, etc.). Or at least be a separate folder or tab if in notifications and pm.

Absolutely should be flaggable as spam. Better yet, let us choose if we can be @'ed or not.


message 36: by Alexandra (last edited Mar 15, 2018 07:44AM) (new)

Alexandra | 1262 comments Otis wrote: "It would make it so easy to pull people who are not yet in a comment thread into it."

Which would be one of the problems with it, IMO. There'd need to be a whole host of user options about it to even be reasonable. For example, users choosing to opt *in* (not auto-opt-in), being able to set it to Friends only - so we weren't "pulled in" by strangers, spammers, book sellers, etc.

ETA: I agree with pretty much everything Debbie has said.

The way people pull me in to conversations I'm interested in is by posting and/or commenting themselves. It then shows up in my Feed, where I can read it and comment if I please. That's how it should be.

Perhaps the Feed display could be modified so that statuses, comments on reviews, etc. were again easier to see, as they used to be. I think that would be helpful. Enlarging the font of review text, status and comments text, decreasing the sizes of the book cover and description in Updates to be more in line with the rest of the display, rather than so overpowering.

I'll also point out that what the OP asked for, and the reasons he asked for it, is already perfectly doable with current GR functionality, as users subsequently pointed out.


message 37: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3457 comments Welp. There goes the neighborhood.


colleen the convivial curmudgeon (blackrose13) | 561 comments I like the idea of someone having the option of being tagged/notified IF someone is directly responding to their comment in a thread.

So, like, if I replied to MrsJ's comment as such:
MrsJoseph wrote: "Welp. There goes the neighborhood."

Then there'd be an option for her to get notified that someone replied to her, and the notification should be set up to take the person directly to the response they are being tagged in.

They should also have the option to turn this off either on a general or per thread basis.


However, I would only want it in this situation. I would not want someone to drag me into a thread I'm not participating in, nor would I want them to flag me on a review.

If they want to send people to my review, they can post a link for my review in their review.

And if my friends want to let me know about a thread, they can via one of our groups or, perhaps, a private message.


message 39: by Summer (new)

Summer (paradisecity) colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I like the idea of someone having the option of being tagged/notified IF someone is directly responding to their comment in a thread...."

Agreed. The comments system could definitely use some improvements and if better threading isn’t on the list, then @ing someone could make things easier.


message 40: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3457 comments colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I like the idea of someone having the option of being tagged/notified IF someone is directly responding to their comment in a thread.

So, like, if I replied to MrsJ's comment as such:
MrsJoseph w..."


I agree. but there IS a way to do it without adding the ability to @ someone.

I like all that you suggest - I just feel that if the @ becomes possible, its a slippery slope.

Then again, why am I fighting to hold back the commercial tide? This place will soon be AmazonBooks or AmazonGoodBooks or something of that nature. Where authors get to sell to readersconsumers or else. And readersconsumers better buy books and a lot of them! And write nice reviews where they all claim how strong the author was to write a book - and that the writing doesn't matter in the face of the story. And it doesn't matter the quality because if you write a negative review, you'll be kickbanned.

And all books with always have the most up to date book covers and ASIN BUY links. Because sales.


message 41: by Manybooks (last edited Mar 15, 2018 11:11AM) (new)

Manybooks | 4471 comments MrsJoseph wrote: "colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I like the idea of someone having the option of being tagged/notified IF someone is directly responding to their comment in a thread.

So, like, if I replie..."


Yes I agree, any move towards @ is way too slippery a slope and could get very icy very quickly.


message 42: by Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) (last edited Mar 15, 2018 09:29AM) (new)

Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) | 10 comments colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "...Then there'd be an option for her to get notified that someone replied to her, and the notification should be set up to take the person directly to the response they are being tagged in..."

But, that option should be part of the discussions features, notified there. Currently, we see discussions with most recent activity first with "# new" in red. Maybe add a "reply" in red or another color the same way on that list. If a person chose notifications on a thread, they already get them.

There are improvements that can be made in these discussion threads, including easily finding our own comments and the responses. A few times, goodreads has even tried some variations.

Twitter and Facebook style @ features aren't going to be an improvement and can easily, IMO, be abused and get to be very annoying clogging up notifications (particulalry if available in reviews or anywhere other than as part of the discussion thread features on specific threads you chose to follow/participate). We already see by our choice of how to be notified all replies on the threads we choose to follow.

The original suggestion I think was for reviews; while well meant (crediting someone for recommending the book or encouraging the read), that's not really a review of the book -- not saying it's wrong to have someone mentioned or credited in reviews because everyone has their own style of reviewing -- and there are already at least three ways to link to someone without needing an @ feature.

I'm not sure goodreads resources are going to be happy undertaking the programming required so that someone could type @Steph and figure out which of a few thousands Stephs were meant (presumably like Librarything touchstones?) plus know that when "Steph" changed her user name to "Stephanie Dragon Goddess" to differentiate herself from other Stephs in the group anyone typing "@Steph" should also be given the option of all new names chosen.

Pretty sure if goodreads wants an @ feature to quickly refer to a user they'll have to set it to member numbers instead of names or else require members to have unique, permanent names. Again, if I have to go to someone's profile to look up anything, I may as well just copy the URL while I'm there.

ETA: Saying "Twitter like" is going to really cause some reactions, both good and bad because Twitter and other social media sites and features do. Twitter is rather the opposite of a site for readers because it's deliberately for quick pithy statements generating huge amounts of connections to buzz the statements about rather than stories and books with in depth discussions and reviews.


message 43: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 1262 comments colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I like the idea of someone having the option of being tagged/notified IF someone is directly responding to their comment in a thread."

But, we already have that really. With the Quote function and the fact that people can subscribe to threads when they choose. You Quote them, they can see you're responding to them. They subscribe and they get notified - if they have chosen to be notified. Additionally, if you're on their Friend list they'll see it in their Feed.

No @ is needed, IMO.


message 44: by Alexandra (last edited Mar 15, 2018 09:26AM) (new)

Alexandra | 1262 comments Manybooks wrote: "Yes I agree, amy move toeards @ is way too slippery a slope and could get very icy very quickly. "

If our Feeds start looking like Twitter I'll lose the very thing I use here the most, and GR will just turn into a place where I catalog my books and nothing else.


message 45: by Alexandra (new)

Alexandra | 1262 comments Debbie's Spurts (D.A.) wrote: "Twitter and Facebook style @ features aren't going to be an improvement ...."

Agree 1000%!


colleen the convivial curmudgeon (blackrose13) | 561 comments Alexandra wrote: "But, we already have that really. With the Quote function and the fact that people can subscribe to threads when they choose. You Quote them, they can see you're responding to them. They subscribe and they get notified - if they have chosen to be notified. Additionally, if you're on their Friend list they'll see it in their Feed. "


Not entirely.

Yes, I can quote someone and they can see I quote them - but this can easily be missed, especially if the bit you're quoting it actually their quote of someone else's post.

And, sure, I could subscribe to a thread, but then I get notifications of any comment in the thread and have to keep checking. This would specifically inform me that someone replied to one of my posts, so that I a) don't miss it in a plethora of posts and b) don't have to keep checking the thread if I no longer wish to follow it.


colleen the convivial curmudgeon (blackrose13) | 561 comments I would actually like for the quoting option to be better, and to actually quote the start of the person's response instead of having to copy/paste to make it clear what you're actually responding to.

I would place that fix as a higher priority.


message 48: by MrsJoseph (new)

MrsJoseph | 3457 comments colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I would actually like for the quoting option to be better, and to actually quote the start of the person's response instead of having to copy/paste to make it clear what you're actually responding ..."

I agree.

There's a great quoting feature I've used before where each quoted post hyper-linked to the original post being quoted. Along with the post itself being auto-copied for you. I'd rather something like that.

And GR wouldn't need other notifications at that point IF the notifications here worked properly...


message 49: by Alexandra (last edited Mar 15, 2018 11:06AM) (new)

Alexandra | 1262 comments colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "But, we already have that really. With the Quote function and the fact that people can subscribe to threads when they choose. You Quote them, they can see you're responding to the..."

Yes, they can see you're responding to them. Yes, they can subscribe to the thread and get a notification of a response to them.

Notifications could be modified to specify that a response was posted in response to you. No @ function required. "So-and-so replied to your post on..."

Being able to @ them in a comment so that the poster chooses, rather than the recipient, is intrusive IMO, and with the functionality we currently have it's unneeded IMO.

I don't want people @ing me. People who want to @ people should use Twitter. I don't want GR to turn into Twitter for books, nor do I want GR to incorporate Twitter functionality.

Tweeking what we have now, so that we're informed in the notification that a response was posted in response to us, and/or if we could select that as an option in Notification (subscribe then only receive notifications if a post is in response to ours), would be great.


colleen the convivial curmudgeon (blackrose13) | 561 comments Alexandra wrote: "
Tweeking what we have now, so that we're informed in the notification that a response was posted in response to us, and/or if we could select that as an option in Notification (subscribe then only receive notifications if a post is in response to ours), would be great."


Yes. That's why this is what I suggested. :)


« previous 1
back to top