Email Notification Fix

wootersl
wootersl
edited May 2012 in Feature Requests
Not sure if this is a feature request, a bug or just something I am doing wrong. When I edit something on the site, down at the bottom is an Email Notification section. It defaults a check mark on my name and 2 other players out of my 5 players. Is there somewhere that this is setup as a default? I would like to have all the boxes unchecked and I will check them if I want to. I hate sending out emails when I make little changes (like spelling corrections) and I forget to uncheck those boxes.

Comments

  • magavendon
    magavendon
    Posts: 112
    I believe (don't quote me on this) that the individual players that have their boxes checked have to turn that option off in their own settings (you can for yourself). This can be accomplished under "My Account" then "Edit My Account", about half-way down the page under the "Email Notifications" area.
  • wootersl
    wootersl
    Posts: 6
    Then I request a feature to have an override on the GMs side. It's annoying to have to uncheck those boxes all the time.
  • magavendon
    magavendon
    Posts: 112 edited May 2012
    Why are you unchecking the boxes anyhow? Are your players asking you to make the emails stop? Or are you just unchecking them because you feel they don't need an email? If they're the ones asking you to uncheck the boxes so they don't get emails tell them to go turn the setting off. If you're the one that doesn't want them to get an email, how come? I like getting emails when campaigns I'm in are changed, perhaps your players do too.

    Edit: I can see the need if you're making GM only pages and your players are still getting emails for that. If this is the case then a setting so that players won't get an email whenever a GM only page is created should be implemented.
    Post edited by magavendon on
  • wootersl
    wootersl
    Posts: 6
    Because. I only want to send an email when it's important. If I notice a typo in my Adventure Log, they don't need an email about that. Or if I am working on a big update and I am constantly saving and moving between areas, I don't want to send an email until the final product is done. I know, I can just uncheck them, but sometimes my brain is going faster then my hands and -boom- an email is sent. I just think it's aggravating. It should be up to the GM if an email is sent. And, since there is no way to prevent players from editing things, on the reverse side, the sending of an email to a GM should be mandatory and grayed out so they can't uncheck it. Just saying. It's not a program breaking feature, but it would be nice to have.
  • dlaporte7271
    dlaporte7271
    Posts: 94 edited May 2012
    I'm not sure how I did it...can't for the life of me find the setting...but...In my wikis my email notification defaults to 'unchecked.' I remember finding and changing the setting...but I seem to have lost it. Going to poke around and see if I can figure it out...maybe someone else already knows off the top of their head.

    Edit: In the forums the default is 'checked'

    I agree with wootersl here...when I was doing major updates and constantly adding pages or editing, my players were getting piles of emails and calling me on it. (can't blame em) so I figured it out...just can't remember where...aaahhh.

    dlaporte
    "violent skies":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/violent-skies
    Post edited by dlaporte7271 on
  • dlaporte7271
    dlaporte7271
    Posts: 94 edited May 2012
    ok...I THINK this is it...

    Go to your profile and click the 'edit my account' button next to your username.

    scroll down to the 'email notifications' section

    un-check the boxes that say 'receive notifications on...'

    Tell your players to do the same...

    I think that will set you up for what you want.

    dlaporte
    Post edited by dlaporte7271 on
  • dlaporte7271
    dlaporte7271
    Posts: 94
    oops...sorry...this is what you get when you don't read all the posts...I see that Magavendon already gave you that tip...duh...anyway...I GUESS the GM over-ride makes sense...but it doesn't seem like THAT much effort to get everyone to change the setting on their own account...once it's done your problem is solved. It's working for me :)

    dlaporte
  • wootersl
    wootersl
    Posts: 6
    Oh I agree it's not a problem. And I won't have issues with my players having them change their options. I just thought it would be a nice Feature to eventually add, if it didn't already exist (which it obviously doesn't). Just a little Campaign Setup check box "Email notifications controlled by GM".
  • magavendon
    magavendon
    Posts: 112
    No problem dlaporte, repetition is the mother of all knowledge (and I can't STOP saying that b/c my science teacher said it like every day in middle school...).
  • dlaporte7271
    dlaporte7271
    Posts: 94
    I have heard a similar quote...'repetition is the mother of skill' taught to me by a martial arts teacher many years ago.

    wootersl...well, if it did exist it would have prevented me from bombarding my poor friends with emails while edited page after page of content :) It took the guys giving me a ton of grief before I figured out how to solve it...

    dlaporte
  • SkidAce
    SkidAce
    Posts: 830
    But if they turn off email notification in their settings....then they won't get a notification when I do want to send one.

    I just want the default to have their names unchecked at the bottom of the page.

    Wooters! says it best in post 5.

    I correct a typo and add one line after researching a subject and they get two emails! No....just one when I'm done.
  • Besieged
    Besieged
    Posts: 6 edited November 2013
    It is really silly to me that this is still not properly resolved over a year later. This is HTML, not quantum physics, and it is not an unreasonable request for each user to have the ability to define what players are or are not checked by default. It's one thing to provide an option that allows a player to choose to receive emails for all new forum posts, etc., and quite another to allow THAT player's settings to modify or interact/interfere with MY default settings. If a player wants to receive emails or notifications on all new posts or changes, that's their dice, let them roll them and deal with the results... make it only new items, any and all updates, whatever you/they want - while you're at it, include an option to refuse all character/campaign related emails so other players can't spam them, possibly creating a digest for that player somewhere on this site. Simply put, let them choose their own adventure... updates. But don't make me the bad guy because I forgot to untick a box for a typo correction.

    In terms of options enabled on MY pages, tied to MY login, that should be up to ME, and there should be a setting on a per-campaign or per-character basis that allows me to specifically select who *I* want the system to send notifications to by default, which would include over-riding all but the "don't send me any mail ever" option: players who have merely elected not to receive update notifications by /default/ - but not the "no mail at all" option - would still receive notifications from any player who has manually - or by default - selected them.

    Seriously, come on. The themes you guys just added was CONSIDERABLY more work than the scripting necessary for this simple request. I am sure and certain my GM doesn't want to get spammed a half-dozen times as I correct or update a post, and I'm seriously tired of having to remember to go un-tick the box at the bottom of the screen. Besides that, we have a player who only makes the occasional session, but is subscribed to updates, and my adventure log contains info that, while not "private" or "secret", he doesn't need updates on because he's not with the main party and we wouldn't be telling him unless he (or his character) asks, so the current configuration means I have to untick his name EVERY time I make a post, fix a typo, or add some words in order to prevent him from getting not just spammed, but spammed with lots of meta-game info, making it harder for him to play his character.
    Post edited by Besieged on
  • Savannah
    Savannah
    Posts: 188
    I suspect the reason it's not "fixed", Besieged, is that it's working as intended. You do not get to choose whether or not I want emails. That is a decision that only I can make and no one should ever be able to override my settings by default (quite frankly, I'm already quite displeased that others can override my settings by ticking/unticking a box). If I choose to receive emails, I accept that I will get spammy emails about small changes. If I choose not to, I accept that I will not get updates about important issues. I am an adult, my DM and fellow players are not my mother, and that is a decision I can make for myself.
  • Besieged
    Besieged
    Posts: 6 edited November 2013
    "Working as a developer intended", Savannah, is not always the same as "working as the users want", and a simple Google search reveals reams of people who have the same complaint/issue I do. My solution above provides all users the flexibility and options to choose how their own profile defaults behave - and thus what, if any, steps they have to take when adding content - while still allowing the current functionality and features.

    What I really wonder now is, what, exactly, is your investment? Why are you, some random user, coming to the defense of a system many have complained about, and then attacking a user who suggested a fix that requires minimal effort, no physical cost, and doesn't affect you in any material way besides giving you more options and freedom regarding your use of this service, while not removing any functionality you already have? Your use of my name, structured the way it is in the sentence - on an internet forum where such is rarely done in that manner - indicates your post was written in a natural speaking style, and clearly conveys a condescending "I know better than you" tone, further implied with the use of quotations around "fixed" - implying an assertion that I don't know what I'm talking about - and the "'X' is not my(your) mother," comment at the end.

    I too, am an adult, and I don't need the site to mother my settings: I should be able to choose them - and who, as a result of *my actions*, receives updates - for myself. The post I made was directed to the developers, as user feedback. Unless you're a developer - in which case you should be removed from forum duty for a lack of customer service skills - I wasn't talking to you, but since you're determined to involve yourself, let me see if I can put it in simple terms:

    If you'd actually read my post, you'd note that the solution I described allows BOTH parties to choose what notifications they do or do not get, irrespective of other users' settings. As it stands, I can still determine whether other users get notifications for my updates by unchecking their name from the list, whereby they get no email. That, however, still involves a setting on THEIR account modifying a default setting on MY account, and forces ME to perform certain actions with every post or update that I, in 95% of cases, do not want done, or to have to do myself nearly every time: the fact that it takes me all of 3 seconds is irrelevant.

    When you're using a tool designed to save time, increase ease-of-use, and improve efficiency, that measures time in millionths of a second, 3 entire seconds is an eternity that adds up rapidly to wasted time or annoyed friends. In the solution I outlined, they'd still be able to choose to get emails or not (or at the very least, get emails for any NEW content, or be given an option to create a digest - a feature that has been around since USENET) regardless of whether I select them to receive it when I make an update: that's their lookout. However, it would NOT force MY pages to automatically select them for updates every time I add a new post or correct a typo. I should be able to choose to email NO ONE by default as a result of something *I* did, and everyone else should be able to choose at a granular level (e.g., only new posts, all updates, updates by specific players, etc.) which updates - if any at all - they receive automatically, but when *I* have the option to send or not send on MY page, and that option is controlled by another player's settings, that means that *I* am responsible for the actions that occur as a result, and I insist that the default settings covering the what happens when I take an action should be up to MY control, not others: *I* should be able to control what I send by default.

    If nothing else, those checkboxes should always be *blank* by default, and give the player an option to select who is on that default list within their character profile: anyone who wants to receive *all* updates should simply be mailed invisibly - as chosen by them in their *own* settings - regardless of what selections the posting player made. But don't give me responsibility for it by giving me the *controls* to mail anyone, everyone or no one, and then tell me that I can't be trusted with the ability to choose the default settings of those controls.
    Post edited by Besieged on
  • dawnhawk
    dawnhawk
    Posts: 113
    Checkboxes be serious bizness.

    Not entirely sure why I am "involving myself" either - since involvement doesn't seem to be what you desire Besieged - but hey, I enjoy popcorn, and popcorn goes great with drama. So /popcorn. :) (In other words, none of this is meant to actually be insulting - more just attempting to defuse with potentially ill placed humor before I get serious - hopefully you will take it as it's intended. If not - c'est la vie.)

    Many of us "random users" are more than a little wearied with the...what was the word someone else used elsewhere on the forum?...oh right, vitriol - that has invaded (rightly or wrongly) these forums since the reforge. Don't get me wrong - honest criticism, erstwhile suggestions, proper bug reports - all of those are GREAT things. But the "tone" (as much as you can say text has tone at all) that often gets read into the posts is...well whingy at best. Which may very well be just the readers projecting onto the posts - us humans are wont to do that. And that then results in - well more vitriol. Shocking, I know. It's a well documented cycle in community interactions - especially in social media studies.

    Also - many of us have become accustomed to jumping in and helping, and suggesting with things - and while that help may not always be appreciated or what was expected - it's become second nature for many who frequent these forums and many may leap before they look as it were.

    Which is, from my observations at least, often what prompts "random users" to be invested. Now - I can't speak for Savannah, and wouldn't presume to - however I do know from previous posts from them that they are often answering posts in the hope of providing some form of answer, so this is an educated guess.

    When it comes to "developers intention" vs "users desires" - I will admit, I have a very strong personal bias. Sadly, that bias does not agree with yours. I will always side on the "developers intentions" in a case like OP. Why? Well because while 3 seconds may seem an "eternity" when you CHOOSE to use a service that is provided "as is" - trying to adjust to disparate and contradictory user desires is an impossibility. And at the end of the day someone needs to take ownership for the vision and desired functionality of a system - and that someone is either the Client OR the Developers - in the case where there is no client and the system is provided as a service that users can opt in and out of. In the case of OP - the responsibility lies with the Developers because there is no "single Client" - there are simply a collection of individuals who all want it "their way".

    Also in my personal bias is my views on the term "request" - you can "request" anything you like, "insisting" is another matter indeed. There is NO obligation on the part of OP to provide for your request. In fact - it is implicitly stated on this website that they are under no such obligation - insistence on your part or no. So Savannah's original statement is in fact potentially quite valid (views on word choice aside). Without official word from the total of 3 (yes three, that's it, that's all we are not dealing with Microsoft here) developers - it may very well be that the current functionality meets their vision. It could also be that they haven't had time. It could also be that there is an underlying side effect to the database structure and/or code that would make doing such a change a monumental task and it's simply easier to make the users who have to, perform a simple repetitive task such as unclick a box.

    I'm afraid that it's not "just HTML" they are dealing with here. It is SQL, PHP, and possibly other scripting languages that we don't see as users. While I whole heartedly agree it's not quantum physics - it's also not Kindergarten arts and crafts. Depending on how coupled and cohesive the system is - changing one aspect may affect half a dozen other places. It may seem like a simple thing on paper in a black box environment - but I for one have no clue what their underlying structure looks like, nor would I presume to assume that they would have designed the system the way I or any other programmer would have, or that it would be an "easy fix" - two words that when put make every programmer I know a) cringe, b) roll their eyes or c) assume the speaker has no clue what they are talking about unless the phrase in literally or figuratively in air quotes.

    I think you have a valid REQUEST - that I don't personally agree with as a user. I think you have some very good points. However I personally find your approach rather off-putting, but that's me, and I'm just a "random user". I guess you can hope the programmers for this site do not.

    Anyway - Best of luck with the request.
  • Savannah
    Savannah
    Posts: 188
    First, tone:
    I used your name purely to indicate that I was replying to you, as this thread is quite old and I wanted to avoid the confusion that can crop up when older threads are revived. As for its use in a normal sentence construction, that is how I always use usernames if I need to address a specific poster -- I personally do not like the more common "@username" construction, and this board does support quotes, so a username in a natural sentence is my preferred mode of address.

    I certainly did not intend my post to be condescending, and I apologize if it came off that way. While talking about tone in posts, however, I would also point out that you are quite aggressively emphasizing your right (as evidenced by the continual use of all caps and asterisks on words such as my and I) to override others' choices, which I find quite offputting (and I admit that my reply was more aggressive than it would otherwise have been due to that). That all being said, I again apologize if I came off as condescending, as it was not my intent.

    Now, content:
    Why am I defending the system? Because I LIKE the system. Generally those who like a system don't post comments saying "I'm so glad [system] exists!" so a quick search will turn up more complaints than praise. That does not mean that no one likes it, and I believe that I have as much right to explain why I like it and feel it is important to maintain as you do to explain why you dislike it and want it changed.

    I did read your proposed system (and I just re-read it, in fact). It revolves around the idea that the settings of the one who is not receiving the email should be able to override the settings of the one who is receiving the email (barring one "never ever ever email me" setting). I believe that the one who is receiving the emails should be in complete control of their email settings, as they are the one who is impacted by the setting. The current system does not FORCE you to do anything when you are posting/editing. You are CHOOSING to override the choices of other members of your group when you check or uncheck the notification boxes. The default assumption is that you simply post/edit and your fellow group members choose whether or not to be notified, and the consequences of their choice are on them.

    You state in your first post that it is "quite another to allow THAT player's settings to modify or interact/interfere with MY default settings". Do you not see how your proposed system is allowing YOUR default settings to modify or interact/interfere with THEIR default settings, to use your phrasing and capitalization? Why are you okay with interfering with their chosen settings but not okay with them interfering with yours, when they are the ones being impacted by the settings? (To be absolutely clear, I mean this as a genuine question.)
  • wootersl
    wootersl
    Posts: 6
    Wow. A pretty deep conversation for what I feel is a simple request. If there is an option to always receive emails, it should be a simple matter to add "Default all notifications on MY GM posts to off". Now, like I said before, this is not a life threatening bug or going to make me stop using the site if it's not implemented. It was a simple feature request which I posted in the Feature a Request section. Now, if you want a random user to gripe, let me start with the way the new site looks. :P But, that again, is just the opinion of one random user.
  • GamingMegaverse
    GamingMegaverse
    Posts: 2,997
    Guys- be nice to each other- please....
    It is a request, not a demand, and some people like parts of this feature, and others do not. We all have a right to our opinions.....
    My 2 cents....
    killervp
    "A God...Rebuilt":https://a-god-rebuilt.obsidianportal.com
    "OP's COTM April 2012":http://blog.obsidianportal.com/a-god-rebuilt-aprils-cotm/
    Here to help anyone- Send me a PM

    Just trying to help out.

  • Besieged
    Besieged
    Posts: 6
    Apologies first: a second post to clarify my original proposal follows.

    I'll grant the tone of my original post could have been less aggressive. I did actually put quite some consideration into the use of the word "insist", for example, but decided - and still believe - that it was the correct word to use: when I go to a place offering a service, I expect the service meet my expectations, and I am no less "insisting" when I tell a restaurant "no pickle on that burger" than when I tell the provider of a web-service that I should have control over my own settings as regards the functionality of my account. It's a strong word, but the correct one none-the-less. Services exist to meet the needs of their customers, and those that don't meet those needs tend to fall by the wayside, especially when those needs do not, by nature, have to impact other's use of that service. Certainly a restaurant can tell me to get lost, but businesses that can get away with that - for very long, anyway - are few, far between, and those that survive are generally extremely niche, or giant monoliths soon to crumble under their own weight and inflexibility. I like this site, and by and large, the features and functions it offers, which is another reason why I think relatively simple (to execute, if not explain) changes that increase functionality and ease of use are important, because those are the little things users see that make them happy, and I'd hate to see this site get stale from lack of use, only to be superceded by another similar service that lacks the polish . This site is, after all, little more than a re-skinned and customized Wiki, and there really isn't anything it does - even as of today - that a good coder couldn't recreate within the Mediawiki framework: if we were talking about an app like Roll20 that clearly took a lot of custom development work, it might be a different story, but this is just plain-jane, common HTML and standard email (as defined by RFC 5322) that anyone can implement that we're talking about here.

    My reaction to Savannah, while certainly also aggressive, lie in my apparent misperception of tone and style. It read to me as if I were being called a child for wanting something my way, and felt implied that I didn't know what I was talking about so should just shut up and accept the way it is. Typically in most normal speech, when one starts a sentence (especially one containing a remonstration or a denial), then pauses to address a specific person, and then carries on, it often serves to single one person out and conveys (or is accompanied by) condescension or reproach in an attempt to establish superior position. If I read your tone wrongly, I'll gladly accept the blame and offer my apologies for it. I detail the above not to lay blame, only so you may see what I saw, and understand why I said what I did: speaking for myself, any time I perceive that someone is telling me "What I have is good enough for me, so you shouldn't need - and don't deserve - anything more, regardless of whether it affects me or not", it tends to set me off: I have little patience for people who want to tell me how I should live my life. Again, my apologies if I misunderstood your intent or reacted inappropriately. I just don't care for being lumped into "the gander" against my wishes, only to then have the goose insist that what's good for it should be good enough for me too... like people who act as if something is wrong with you because you don't like their favorite food. Again, I explain all of this only for clarification: spending this much time writing this post wasn't something I wanted to have to do, but I do anyway to clear the air and any misunderstandings.

    As for original tone, because this forum lacks the features I normally use to carry emphasis from speech, such as italics, I fall back to the use of capitals in place of bold text, and asterisks or slashes to convey italics. My emphases may have been overdone, but it was to stress that I take issue with the actions of others having a direct effect on me, my options, or my work-flow, by placing emphasis on the operative words. I did not - and do not, regardless of whether I phrased or constructed the statements properly the first time - wish to do anything that would affect anyone else or their options: all I ever wanted was for the actions or choices of others to not impinge on my own choices. My writing style is what it is: I do not claim any great gift for it - beyond extreme verbosity, perhaps - and obviously sometimes my attempts to ensure clarity or thoroughness are taken the wrong way. No offense to anyone was intended in the original post, and while some offense was intended by the second, I again offer my apologies for that, it was apparently an unjustified overreaction to what I wrongly perceived as both insult and dismissal.
  • Besieged
    Besieged
    Posts: 6
    Mostly, I like the system as it exists. Another part of my strong language was the result of noting how old so many of the threads on this issue are coupled with the fact that there are still new posts being made by people who can't understand why the feature works the way it does and why they don't have control over this setting themselves: the very small handful of terse replies from the devs that indicate they know exactly what it is people want, but read like they have no interest in fulfilling, did not help. This led to no small amount of the frustration that resulted in the attitude read in my post, especially since I know with certainty about how much effort it would involve (not all that much, in the grand scheme of things: it should be fairly low-hanging fruit) to bring this function in line with user expectations: most people will assume that when an option is checked by default that it should be a function of one of their own settings, not someone else's. It really wouldn't be a lot of work, and there's no reason the functionality most users seem to expect (being in control of their own default settings, not having options they can see and manipulate at will with default settings they cannot change permanently) should have to interfere with anyone else's.

    As for my proposal, I think I must have phrased this wrongly if there is still confusion on this point, as evidenced by your last question, Savannah: what I would want to see is each user retain control over what updates they receive notifications about, as well as gaining control over the options for who is selected for notification by default.

    In the scenario in question, every user would still retain the exact same options in their profile that allow them to choose which types of updates they get notifications about, though I would suggest it would be helpful to add a sub-option for *each* of the four current categories with the option "only for new items" or "exclude updates" or something similar, so as to allow them slightly more granular control over what messages they get: if they want to receive a mail for every time any item is posted or edited, that should be their choice. I would also add a "digest" option: some people may not wish to receive emails at all - or only once a week, or only from new items - but may want to still be able to see these changes in one place (e.g. on the website or in a single weekly/monthly/whatever email) when they go looking. This would be especially useful for large parties, and/or groups that often wind up playing impromptu scenarios or are otherwise split.

    (Trimmed for max posting length: please see next post for wrap-up)
  • Besieged
    Besieged
    Posts: 6 edited November 2013
    So, to that end, it would be a pretty simple matter to use a hidden tagging system (similar to the one already in use) or an additional column in the database to tag each item in the background database with the names of any users who have subscribed to a digest and a "viewed?: yes/no" attribute so that, just like clicking on a tag already does, it would show you in a single page (or email) any items to which you have subscribed, but elected not to receive (instant/daily) emails for. E.g., a user might elect for "only new items" and then "digest updates", so s/he would get emails on all new items, then another email once a day/week/month any time there are unread updates in the digest during that time period. Or, they might elect to receive "only new items" emails, "digest updates - no email" and simply check their digest page whenever they log into the site. Or just plain "no email - digest all - no email"... hopefully, I've conveyed the idea properly this time. There should also be a "receive updates regardless of poster" that the GM, at the very least, should have available, in order to satisfy those who do not care how many emails they get and just want everything not marked as private or secret. It's basically the difference between allowing one user to choose to see all/any/some/specific updates (or perhaps updates from specfic users) or not as they please, while allowing others to control who they actively send updates to... basically, one involves me /causing/ the system to send mail directly about a post, the other involves a user /electing/ to ask the *system* to send updates. While functionally similar, it comes down to one email received because you asked for it - "Hello Player X, there is a new update in Player Y's journal" - and sending email because I told it to - "Hello Player X, Player Y mentioned you in a journal post." To add to the idea of increased granularity for the person _requesting_ updates be sent, an additional option of "receive updates of 'type' (adventure log, character sheets, etc) *FROM* Player A, Player B, and Player C, but *NOT* Player's X, Y, or Z," could be included... all of which even I could do in PERL in a relatively short time, and I'm just a systems analyst, not a proper programmer.

    Following on to your question, and where I think we got our wires crossed, I don't want to stop a user from choosing to receive emails: I simply don't want to be the one responsible for spamming them with added commas and corrected typos, and in my opinion, since I have the option and functionality to affect this, it is indeed on my shoulders any time it happens, *especially* since the receiving user has such limited options in which emails they receive: four categories, but no granularity at all. Their options are: "risk being spammed in order to be sure they aren't missing out," or, "miss out on everything because I might get spammed," which places the onus on me to be sure I untick that box for updates I know I wouldn't care about.

    Savannah, you said, "Do you not see how your proposed system is allowing YOUR default settings to modify or interact/interfere with THEIR default settings," but I can already do exactly that. Regardless of who in my campaign has enabled the update notifications, those settings are being over-ridden every single time someone unticks the boxes at the bottom while posting. Because I make so many additions, updates, or corrections to my posts, I quite literally wind up exercising exactly that option about 85% of the time I click the save button: every user already has the option to override the subscription settings of all the other players. What I want is the ability to control my own defaults and my own options, to decide what options are selected by default, not to have other users decide it for me. Heck, to take my original proposal one step further, let's take a cue from above, and not only allow me to control who is selected as a default, but give me a second default list: one for all new posts, and another for updated posts. As I was at least attempting to propose originally, I don't want to stop people from receiving mail who want it, I only want to stop _myself_ from sending it - by default - when I may not want it to, whatever the reason.
    Post edited by Besieged on
  • dawnhawk
    dawnhawk
    Posts: 113
    Actual discourse - awesome. May take me a bit to parse of this. And bare in mind I may play a bit of devil's advocate and go in different directions here. ^.^

    Oh - but first in regards to italics etc - You can turn on Textile at the bottom of your post Besieged - and then you *_emphasis_* should be intact as long as you use the standard textile coding (ie same as you use for your OP wiki). :)

    I definitely agree about the MediaWiki. However, I have to agree with Savannah in regards to there being no perfect solution here. Using your example - if you go to a restaurant and "don't want a pickle on your hamburger" that's fine. But in my mind - and I fully admit perhaps I'm reading this wrong? - it almost sounds like what you want the "restaurant" to do (oh analogies how I dislike you so) is you want the restaurant to change the menu so that there are no pickles available by defualt so you don't HAVE to order without pickles - and everyone who wants pickles will have to then ASK to have a pickle.

    Does that make sense? (Honest question...as mentioned, I really don't like laboured analogies.)

    Now - in this case - presumably since you are the "GM" you feel an ownership of the campaign site. Valid view. And therefore feel that your default should trump that of the players. Please correct if that's wrong!! Which may be true for your campaign. I can think of a number of campaigns where that may not be the case. Rules Lite systems for example that don't necessarily run with a GM, but more by consensus (and yep willing to accept a this as a "fringe case").

    But In order to account for ALL types of campaigns - where ownership is clear and one view should trump vs another where ownership is not so clear, or even let's say where there are Co-GMS who delegate certain duties and perhaps one GM wants the default to off and another wants the default on...which GM's desire trumps which? And how do you "set that" exactly - since at that point it can't be set by "campaign". On a purely logical level - I'd have to actually sit and plot out an algorithm...

    All of a sudden the perceived simple starts to look complex. Not saying it's impossible - it may even be easy (again depending on their underlying structure, not sure). Let's face it - feature creep is feature creep.
  • dawnhawk
    dawnhawk
    Posts: 113
    *still parsing and rereading*

    Adding a digest option would be nice - but would definitely add more "work" (ie logic, not necessarily a lot of effort) to the system. Because you would be moving from what I am assuming (absolutely assuming!!) is a simple trigger ("change made - send email") in the database that simply fires on every update and/or insert into the db to actually recording every change made, and compiling them based on specific selects to grab only the specified information.

    Now - changes are already tracked (as evidenced by the stream) - so that's not alot of work as in "effort". But you would have to add a few more triggers to the db in order to send out the digests at the designated time, go through and find all changed in the stream between periods, filter for exactly what data is actually desired by X User etc. Not particularly "difficult" (as in we aren't reinventing the wheel here, lots of systems do this...heck yahoo has done it for soon to be decades) - but it is a change that takes time (which is a finite resource with 3 devs...so would depend on their priority list as it stands right now...which I suspect is a scary scary list indeed), and would definitely be a significant "feature" change as far as basic logic - not "omg huge" but significant.

    Though - I am still confused on one thing and I've read this a couple of times, maybe I just need more sleep. You'd STILL be "sending it by default" - if the person chose to receive it "by default" - exactly as it is now.

    So while as a user I can see the benefit of more options (though one I wouldn't put priority on cause...well I'm one of the ones who just turn it all off anyway, and near as I can figure so did all of my players cause no one is ticked by default on my campaign) - I'm still completely confused on how this remedies the original point of aggravation* in that regard.

    *Or whatever word best describes the driving force behind the desire to not be the one "spamming"
  • Besieged
    Besieged
    Posts: 6
    Ok, I just got home for the day... I won't be able to go into too much detail or provide a very specific response tonight, as I've got a 7-month-old with an ear infection, so I don't have a lot of time at this moment, but I wanted to touch on a few specifics from your reply.

    I thought textile might provide that functionality, but unfortunately it wasn't working well on my work computer's browser.

    And a small clarification, no, I'm not the campaign GM, just one of the players, notably the one who has some of the better typing and writing skills of the group (no comment on my interpersonal skills :P ) and is generally expected to do most of the adventure logging, owing to my natural verbosity.

    As for the restaurant analogy, you've kind of got it backwards, at least where my actual intent is concerned. To stick with the analogy, as it currently stands, I'm being given a menu. I order a burger. I am informed that I can have any of the sides and toppings I want, *except* for pickles: the manager has decided that all burgers de facto come with pickles - how many pickles I get depends on how many people called in reservations for burgers that day. If I don't like it, too bad, I can take the pickles off the burger when it arrives at the table, but I'm getting them whether I want them or not, and no, I cannot have them on the side.

    All I want is to be able to order a burger with no pickles. I do not want my default options set for me, which then places the onus or burden on me if I forget to untick the boxes at the bottom and spam my party. I do not want my party members to feel compelled to turn off all updates entirely because they get too many irrelevant emails from me. Likewise, I like to know when there are new posts, but I don't really care to get an update when one is edited, speaking for myself, and I'd like the ability to control that.

    As previously, I can /already/ override everyone else's default settings (i.e. "Receive notifications on 'X'" as set in their profile) before I save the adventure log or character sheet simply by unchecking the box with their name in it. The problem is, because of *their* settings, I now have to do this manually _every single time I post or update one_, and I wish to be able to control that for myself. What I propose instead is to allow players to choose who they actively trigger mail to be sent to by default, and in the same stroke - by adding a bit of granular flexibility - allow users a very fine control of what they get notifications about that override the poster's outbound settings, with options like "only receive notifications for new posts - not updates" and "Do not subscribe, but still receive manual notifications" making it possible to choose to receive none, some or all, and for post authors, allowing them to purposefully send updates or new posts to people they want to see them. For those who have no problems with the way things are now, it should truly change nothing of their experience besides a quick review of the new options they have; for those who do not wish to send an email with every post, or those who might now choose to receive no email at all to alleviate update spam, this would be a welcome relief in allowing them more control, and ensuring emails from this site do not wind up ignored or marked as spam due to volume - something I have actually seen posts from developers worrying about.
  • Savannah
    Savannah
    Posts: 188
    Waitwaitwait...two people on the internet admitted they reacted overly aggressively, apologized for it, and are discussing the matter civilly? o_O Hallelujah; someone check for flying pigs.

    Silliness aside, I still don't see any way that you can have "writer manages who gets emails" and "email receiver manages whether or not they get emails" without someone's choice overriding the other's. Either the writer can send/not send emails regardless of what the receiver wants or the receiver can choose to get/not get emails regardless of what the writer wants. There is no way to reconcile "writer wants receiver to get email" and "receiver does not want to get email", nor "writer does not want to send email" and "receiver does want email" (at least not without *_significantly_* changing the system from instant emails to some sort of email digest, which I do not believe is nearly as easy as you are making it out to be). Since the receiver is the one impacted (either an unwanted email pops up in their box or they miss an email they want), I feel it is obvious that they should be able to choose the default behavior. Of course, there is a potential downside to each choice (too many emails about tiny edits vs. missing big changes), but there's just the way it is -- there's no way to automatically detect what is and is not important, so there's no way to choose "I only want to get important emails".

    I'm not sure why you feel so responsible for deciding what emails your group members should/should not receive. You're not responsible for them getting an email each time you change a "their" to a "there". They are. They are responsible because they chose to receive all emails. If they don't like the consequences of their choice, is is their responsibility to make another choice.

    Are you familiar with the (for a time fairly regular, although I haven't seen it lately) calls for Obsidian Portal to make it so that players cannot edit pages without GM permission? Obsidian Portal's staff have always denied those requests because they believe that a rpg group should trust one another and communicate one another, not depend on the site to manage their group for them. While I cannot speak for OP's staff, I personally feel that requests to let writers override email receivers' choices fall into the same area. I feel that you (generic you, not you specifically, Besieged) should trust that the other members of your group can decide for themselves whether they'd prefer to get spammed (is it really spam if they've chosen to receive the emails?) or potentially miss something important. I feel that you (again, general you) should communicate with the other members of your group -- if you feel that you're making significantly more minor edits than important changes, let them know and ask them if they feel spammed instead of assuming that you know and unticking them. Humans can make judgement calls and computers can't, so just adding another automatic, computerized layer of who gets to make what choice for the other members of the group won't solve the problem.
  • dawnhawk
    dawnhawk
    Posts: 113 edited November 2013
    Aw - hope the kidlet feels better Besieged. That is no fun for anyone!!

    Wait...your GM has a player who will take over the game write ups and wiki editing...and the grunt work?! Ok...totally envious of your GM. Don't get me wrong, my players adore OP, but none of them had ever heard of it before I started this game and I'm lucky that they've started updating their DSTs that I made for them on a regular basis...Your GM owes you cookies. And babysitting. IMO.

    But...you can...oh wait ok I get it. You have to have the pickle, you can just take it off yourself when the burger gets to the table. (Yah still disliking analogies, but I think I've got you now.)


    We are actually discussing apples and oranges...well and pickles.

    Our point was more from a perception of integrity thing. Your point is you get exactly the same functionality while not having to unclick the box - so from your point of view it looks easier (ie. you want to make the current someone hacky functionality more concrete). But from everyone elses point of view it actually works the same. Technically. Which from a purely logical point of view - makes a certain amount of sense.

    Except now I'd be wondering why the digest only includes half of the updates instead of just wondering why I only have random emails. Which...I'd likely be a fringe case in that respect. I'd wonder why my digest (if I got it) didn't match the stream and poking around my settings to see what I set wrongs. :P

    That being said - understanding what you want - I'm still in the boat of "don't personally agree with it". Your gamers have opted in if they are getting updates. Your personal feelings about sending them every semicolon change aside.

    I'd totally put my support behind a suggestion for allowing USERS to opt in to more granular controls of what emails they get for themselves. But not the "I can set my overrides to be automatic" part. Sorry - your argument is sound for why you want it, but I think if you want to trump my settings you should have to to think about it enough to click a button. Personal opinion, final verdict would of course rest with OP. On that note - I'd also throw support behind a suggestion that removed your ability to trump my settings at all, and just made it so no one got emails for GM only page/secret settings unless they were included in the secret AND had it set that they received emails.

    Edit note - in the spirit of we actually have a proper dialogue going and I don't actually want it to accidently blow up into "wait what the heck did I just say" - consider the all "you"/"me"/"random pronoun of your choice" to be NEUTRAL. As in I don't mean "you Besieged" - I mean "you random person in existence that has X characteristic" - in this case "you" would be "person who has ability to trump"...which is any person who is currently in a campaign with another person.

    I'm fairly certain that didn't NEED to be stated. But I actually watched a local coffee group blow up this past week because someone named a particular weekly (they do a lot of coffees) coffee a "poor man's coffee" and someone else found that "exclusionary" because they didn't consider themselves poor and pitched a fit and the whole group is now in fighting...and the only thing going through MY head has been Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory going "but I don't drink coffee...". So my faith in humans is a wee bit low at the moment.
    Post edited by dawnhawk on
Sign In or Register to comment.

February 2024
Cyberpunk 2077 Fate Accelerated

Read the feature post on the blog
Return to Obsidian Portal

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Discussions