Mention noise / central dashboard


(Dean Taylor) #1

###Mention Noise
I was just wondering if the Discourse team get @username mention noise?

I can see you guys use mentions between the Discourse Team to draw attention to things and effectively create a todo list.
Do you have a special method for this? Perhaps use of bookmarks.

I was thinking you guys would need a specific way of giving mentions by a Discourse Team member a higher priority if you got a lot of mentions from other users.

Or is this just a non-issue?

###Dashboard
If you are providing support for a lot of Discourse instances…

Do you have a central dashboard for monitoring “at mentions” from admins / moderators from across your commercially supported Discourse instances?

I can see a gap (product wise) where logging in with your Discourse ID into a Dashboard seeing activities from across the communities I’m involved which could be helpful.


(Jeff Atwood) #2

One thing I wish we had is a list of just our @name mentions.

Note that @riking added a “view all” mode for notifications which lets you dig into very long notification lists via your profile page, and @cpradio (I think) added a dismiss all button there. These were very helpful changes in managing lots of notifications.


(Kane York) #3

I think seeing a blue 704 was what prompted me to do that.


(Régis Hanol) #4

I support that. Not sure why we merged it with other notifications.


(cpradio) #5

That would be useful. Even on our instance where I don’t necessarily get a lot of them, but when I do, it is important for me to follow up on it. So having a spot where I can specifically see who and where mentioned me, would give me a list I can work from.


(Kane York) #6

The list of your @mentions is available in the backend, just never displayed in the UI.

https://meta.discourse.org/user_actions.json?offset=0&username=codinghorror&filter=7&_=1423092867737

Could add a tab to the user profile page?


(Jeff Atwood) #7

Yeah that would be a great thing if you can add it @riking !


(Kane York) #8

Done :smiley:

With an extremely small diff for a feature! Just 6 new lines added and 2 lines removed. (plus 6 for a temporary css)

Desktop


Mobile

We need to upgrade font-awesome, by the way. I added a temporary hack to get the @ icon to display in the meantime.

https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/3170


(Sam Saffron) #9

I am against this, we need to upgrade font awesome.


(Jeff Atwood) #10

No we don’t the @ icon has been in font awesome forever. We use it in the notifications drop down for the mentions.


(Sam Saffron) #11

I just don’t want this:

+// XXX HACK
+// TODO REMOVE WHEN FONT AWESOME IS UPDATED
+.fa.fa-at:before {
+  content: "@";
+}

feels yucky to me, also no harm in upgrading font awesome.


(Jeff Atwood) #12

Actually I was mistaken we use the literal @. Probably Ok to upgrade FA before 1.2.


(Kane York) #13

I’ll remove that CSS, then the icon will “just start working” when we do the FA upgrade.

edit: pr amended, will have no icon until FA upgrade


(Sam Saffron) #14

I think mentions overlap with replies. we used to split up reply types and then we started merging them all together in a bundle to minimise confusion.

I wonder if it makes sense having replies and then allowing users to filter replies by what they will.

Also I wonder what the use case is for purely looking at @ mentions vs all replies.


(Jeff Atwood) #15

Name mentions tend to be more “I need someone else from the outside to look at this topic” versus conversational replies to previous posts in the topic.


(Kane York) #16

Well, @mentions aren’t necessarily replies are they?


(Sam Saffron) #17

For the UIs purpose they are … they are included in the “replies” filter.


(Kane York) #18

I noticed; the change removes that and separates them out. Now only “reply” and “quote” are in the replies tab, which is the same as what gets displayed in a topic.

Seems more consistent to me.


(Sam Saffron) #19

this is a full circle on a change and I am not really seeing why do this, next we will be splitting out quotes and then end up with 4 extra tabs


(Jeff Atwood) #20

Well, the goal was to see @name mentions alone, so if we can’t do that, then why bother.

Edit: re reading the above I guess that is what we are doing so I am Ok with that. A @name mention is definitely not a reply in any sense of the word.