Whole #groups, probably not. A small unique list of users? Depends if a poker can add names one at a time. I haven’t had a chance to test the new poke/invite feature yet. But I can see it similar in ux/ui with how a user adds categories to their Watched/Tracked/Muted lists in user prefs.
The invite box already allows the use as @groups as aliases (i.e. enter an @group and it will expand out to its members).
Looking at the commit history, this appears to be a deliberate feature that was added after the first release of the poke feature.
If so then there has to be a permissions check already built in. And then again, if so* (which I sincerely hope it does) then it can make a silent/soft error or a fatal one, or something in between.
*I’d check but I’m procrastinating on a server build. 
1 Like
That is what it is. People are trying to pervert it into a permission grant.
3 Likes
I have to admit that mixing a ping feature with an invite feature is a tad confusing. I understand that they both invite people to things, either the forum or the thread. But they are very different.
The email invite sends a notification email, and potentially gives the new user a selection of permissions (via groups) they wouldn’t get through a normal sign up.
This new invite feature operates entirely internally. It neither signs people up, or gives them permissions. Could I suggest that maybe it gets it’s own button e.g. “Mention”, “Inform [User]”, “Alert [User]” or perhaps add the functionality to the share button.
I’m having difficulty describing it, but it feels like this feature only ended up on the “Invite” button because the verb describes it quite well, not because it’s a similar feature or fits in the same logical grouping. Also moving it away from the “Invite” button makes it clear that nothing that special happens when you use the feature.
1 Like
This is the logical place for it.
1 Like
There’s enough room here, though I don’t know if for some sites it might already be cramped real estate. And I’m sure a better FontAwesome icon could be used.
3 Likes
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…
It is an identical action, “hey check out this totally rad topic!”, whether the user has an account on the site or not is irrelevant.
To me that also perfectly describes what the share button is for.
On my site we have SSO enabled so the invite button never appears. Now the invite button has appeared, and it’s functionality could easily be descirbed by the share button I.E. “Here’s this totally rad topic that I want to share with you”.
2 Likes
Mostly I use the link button to get a link to the topic for myself.
The act of inviting someone, to a party, to a meeting, is much more explicit in intent: you are asking the person to show up and participate, not just passively glance at it.
2 Likes
Yeah I understand what you’re getting at there.
I feel like my original request has gotten lost in the attempts to make this a permission grant feature.
I was hoping that the Invite button could appear in private topics, allowing you to Invite people who already have permission to view the topic. Without this it makes the feature considerably less useful on my own site where we have quite large private categories.
3 Likes
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 
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