User Invitation/Poking a user to a topic is now live!

That makes more sense for me now that you explained the reasoning behind why it is under ‘invite’ instead of ‘share’.

Sure, making invite as useful as possible is the goal. @techapj I guess you could require that private topic invites are username only. Then as the usernames are entered reject any usernames that don’t have permission to view the current topic.

Totally reasonable.

7 Likes

Thank you for that. It is similar to my suggestion earlier in this topic:

I disagree… I want to let a person know that a topic/conversation/resource exists… no need for them to participate at all if they don’t want to.

2 Likes

@watchmanmonitor’s explanation has sound reason too.

At this point it might make more sense to merge the two together, for the sake of meeting everyone halfway.

Or, I think what might make a lot more sense is to have both per-topic and per-reply invites. Per-topic stays where it is now. Per-reply is situated with the share popup. I think that is why both @codinghorror and @watchmanmonitor have explanations I can agree with equally, but both are leveraging two very different scopes within the same ‘thing’.

It’s “Hey, look at this topic overall.” vs “Hey, check out what soandso said.” It’s changing scope within the same scheme, moving a microscope in and out to view the specimen overall or the individual parts that make up the whole.

The email or notif that is sent can further elaborate with the specific context that the poker implied: check out this topic or check out this specific reply.

As to how it is used (please view vs please participate) might factor on an optional message the poker can send to add that needed reason for the poking in the first place.

1 Like

Sorry, that won’t be happening. Copy and pasting a link is different than sending an invitation.

1 Like

My idea proposed a second button in the share popup, not a link (but I wasn’t really clear on that so I understand why you think I meant a share link). I agree with your sentiment but placement for the invite option could cover more than just the overarching topic.

Edit: What I said was so completely wrong as to be a waste of everyone’s time.

This feature does what I think it should do and it’s great.

As you were.

4 Likes

Okay, implemented this feature :gift:

https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/3375


Just to clarify, here are the current scenarios for topic/message invitations:

Public Topics

  • Admins can invite users via username and email. If inviting via email, admins can also specify group(s).
  • Users with TL2 and above can invite via email and username.
  • Users with TL1 and below can not invite.

Private Topics

  • Admins can invite users via username (if that user has permission to view that private topic) and email. If inviting via email, admins can also specify group(s).
  • Users with TL2 and above can invite via username (if that user has permission to view that private topic).
  • Users with TL1 and below can not invite.

Messages

  • Admins can invite users via username and email.
  • Users with TL2 and above can invite via username and email.
  • Users with TL1 and below can not invite.
13 Likes

Thanks for this! It makes this feature way more useful :smiley:

But a couple of thing (I’m really sorry about this), I can’t seem to invite entire groups (my site uses SSO and I’m an admin, not sure if thats important), even on non-private topics groups are not appearing in the search/username box. Nor can I enter more than one username into the invite box.

Also for group invites, could group selectability be defined by the groups alias settings. i.e. If I’m a member for GroupA, and GroupA’s alias setting is “Only group members, moderators and admins” or similar, then I can always invite that group, regardless of my trust level / admin status.

Groups are not supported for invites at this time. Would be kind of risky.

Why are group invites more risky than group @mentions?

Both create a notification and an email, if anything invites are less risky because there rate limited unlike @mentions.

Awesome!

Shouldn’t it now be quite easy to also implement the “create only” security setting?

Simply allow users to create a new topic in the restricted category and be implicitly invited to the topic they just created…


Because a TL2 user could expose a private topic to the world by inviting the trust_level_0 group.

2 Likes

Please read the thread. This feature does not grant permissions.

Hum. You’re right, sorry. I totally misinterpreted the change to lib/guardian.rb.

Too bad, this also invalidates the idea regarding create-only categories. :frowning:

Sorry to poke you like this @codinghorror, but I was hoping to get your opinion on this:

Group mentions needs to be redone before we’d attempt group invites.

2 Likes

So, I run a closed discourse… I normally tell people I’m going to invite them, then would visit my preferences and invite them.

The invitations they get from within a topic are WAY more interesting than normal. very cool…

It makes me want this feature implemented even more though… but I find my invites are being accepted more frequently, and I need to visit my invites page less often in general. AND they are already activated, which is double prizes.

Thanks again for this method of inviting people.

4 Likes

I like this feature because it allows you to privately invite someone to a topic, without calling them out publicly and awkwardly forcing them to respond.

One idea although probably not trivial to implement - being able to email reply-to the invite to respond to the topic. Reduces friction even more, especially since you’re probably inviting someone that isn’t that engaged with the Discourse to begin with.

2 Likes