Duplicate Reverse ignore

[Spartan]

That's probably the wrong term. Facebook allow users to say who sees a specific post (status updates). It would be nice to have this capability here.

To be more specific, I'd a user to have the ability to block/hide a post from a certain user(s).

 

[Martok]

I think this may have been suggested before but I can't find it.

This is a big no from me. This facility works well on Facebook because it is social media that centres around you, the user. You can decide what you post and who can see it and you can choose what you want to see and what you don't by following/blocking.

Forums are different, they are communities for discussion and are not centred around individuals. It should only be up to the admin/mods to determine who can see threads by having forums which are available only to particular user groups. It shouldn't be up to individuals to decide who can and who can't see their posts/threads (though of course they can control whether they see other people's content with the ignore feature).

 

[Spartan]

I think this may have been suggested before but I can't find it.

This is a big no from me. This facility works well on Facebook because it is social media that centres around you, the user. You can decide what you post and who can see it and you can choose what you want to see and what you don't by following/blocking.

Forums are different, they are communities for discussion and are not centred around individuals. It should only be up to the admin/mods to determine who can see threads by having forums which are available only to particular user groups. It shouldn't be up to individuals to decide who can and who can't see their posts/threads (though of course they can control whether they see other people's content with the ignore feature).

If I had someone constantly replying to my posts, and taking them off topic, I would want to hide my posts from the user. Not because I cared about their opinion, but because others are less likely to read and/or reply to my posts if there are snotty replies and/or garbage. In the absence of that, I'd leave, or at the very least, post less often. I see this on each of my sites. And whether the offended person is right, or not, I don't like losing valuable posters.

As to your comment about forums being communities for discussion not centered around individuals - that's not true with my forums. The same three to four thousand people visit every day, spread out over a dozen boards. It is a cross between what you describe, and Facebook. If I lose a few key posters for any given board, it can die a very quick death. And that's exactly what has happened at one of my sites, and this is the reason I have posted this suggestion.

Edit: Case in point - some idiot has been replying to every post I make on Reddit. I've stopped posting on Reddit.

 

[Paul B]

Sounds like this suggestion: https://xenforo.com/community/threa...nction-to-block-blocking-ignored-users.59636/

 

[Martok]

Sounds like this suggestion: https://xenforo.com/community/threa...nction-to-block-blocking-ignored-users.59636/

Yep, that appears to be the same thing, making this a duplicate.

If I had someone constantly replying to my posts, and taking them off topic, I would want to hide my posts from the user. Not because I cared about their opinion, but because others are less likely to read and/or reply to my posts if there are snotty replies and/or garbage. In the absence of that, I'd leave, or at the very least, post less often. I see this on each of my sites. And whether the offended person is right, or not, I don't like losing valuable posters.

That's the role of moderators - to keep an eye on the forums and to deal with off-topic posters/aggressive responses/garbage etc. It's not the role of ordinary members to decide who should and should not see topics of discussion.

As to your comment about forums being communities for discussion not centered around individuals - that's not true with my forums. The same three to four thousand people visit every day, spread out over a dozen boards. It is a cross between what you describe, and Facebook. If I lose a few key posters for any given board, it can die a very quick death. And that's exactly what has happened at one of my sites, and this is the reason I have posted this suggestion.

As above, it's should be moderators that deal with problem posters, not individuals.

I'm sure you wouldn't like it if you found a bunch of people on a forum deciding that they didn't like you for some reason and then excluded you from threads they started which may be of particular interest to you. I certainly wouldn't. Similarly I'm sure you wouldn't want users excluding others from discussions for hateful reasons such as they don't like someone because they are gay/black/different religion/etc.

The ignore feature should be there and maybe some tweaks and enhancements could be made, but outright blocking other users from topics of discussion is a can of worms and really shouldn't be included in the core software

 

[Spartan]

That's the role of moderators

No, it's not. What one person considers offense, others may not. If I can retain a user who posts 50 times a day by simply allowing him to hide his posts from an annoyance, I would like that ability. If you wouldn't use the feature, fine. Why you are taking the time to say you don't want something is beyond me. If you wouldn't use the feature then don't use it if it's offered. I know my sites. I would like the feature.

Notice that several others liked the recommendation in the post Brogan posted.

 

[Martok]

It is perfectly legitimate to comment on a suggestion, particularly if disagreed on. This has been discussed in several suggestions already by the devs - it's the only way for people to disagree with a suggestion as Likes only show agreement (and not showing likes doesn't necessarily mean disagreement). As for the argument that if someone doesn't like a feature you just don't use it and (sort of implied) that you shouldn't argue against suggested features, there is the issue of bloat. The more that's added to the XenForo core, the more bloated it becomes. So it's not unreasonable for people to post disagreement with suggestions (as well as agreement) so that the devs can better gauge what to add based on popularity as well as practicality.

Yes, 6 people did like the other thread, though do note that several disagreed with it (they posted to say so).

I think @Brogan's response in that thread covers this in part:

It has been suggested and discussed previously.

For reasons already stated, it's not a practical application for forums as threads would be rendered nonsensical if members were blocked from seeing content by other members without their knowledge.

along with what I previously said:

I'm sure you wouldn't like it if you found a bunch of people on a forum deciding that they didn't like you for some reason and then excluded you from threads they started which may be of particular interest to you. I certainly wouldn't. Similarly I'm sure you wouldn't want users excluding others from discussions for hateful reasons such as they don't like someone because they are gay/black/different religion/etc.

Anyway, this thread is now closed as a duplicate so I guess the discussion can continue in the other thread.

 

[Spartan]

I have no problem with anyone saying they wouldn't use a feature. I do have a problem with anyone saying something shouldn't be offered because they don't like it.

The original post received a 1/2 dozen likes. Let's see how many yours gets

It is perfectly legitimate to comment on a suggestion, particularly if disagreed on. This has been discussed in several suggestions already by the devs - it's the only way for people to disagree with a suggestion as Likes only show agreement (and not showing likes doesn't necessarily mean disagreement). As for the argument that if someone doesn't like a feature you just don't use it and (sort of implied) that you shouldn't argue against suggested features, there is the issue of bloat. The more that's added to the XenForo core, the more bloated it becomes. So it's not unreasonable for people to post disagreement with suggestions (as well as agreement) so that the devs can better gauge what to add based on popularity as well as practicality.

Yes, 6 people did like the other thread, though do note that several disagreed with it (they posted to say so).

I think @Brogan's response in that thread covers this in part:



along with what I previously said:



Anyway, this thread is now closed as a duplicate so I guess the discussion can continue in the other thread.

 

[EQnoble]

I have no problem with anyone saying they wouldn't use a feature. I do have a problem with anyone saying something shouldn't be offered because they don't like it.

The original post received a 1/2 dozen likes. Let's see how many yours gets

I am not taking a position on the suggestion...but nobody judges the likes on posts that argue points following the OP suggestion, only the likes on the first post matter for the most part. From my perspective a suggestion thread is basically like a mini political campaign.

You state a problem that exists and explain out how your idea can fix that issue and for the opposition their job if they don't want the suggestion to be implemented is to pose logical arguments so that when someone sees your idea they can also see more than one side of the coin and decide what they think and go from there.

There are a limited amount of things the devs can add to the software over x amount of time and because the model of letting community support of an idea is the way for us to choose what gets added indirectly...it really is only logical if someone feels something to be a waste to be added for their own reasons that they state it the same way you state a suggestion based on what you think the software is missing.