Users added to a PM are not set to watch it and don't get notifications


(Jay Pfaffman) #1

Start a PM with users AAA, BBB, CCC
Add more DDD, EEE, FFF to the PM

Add replies to the original PM.

Expected: new replies there ALL invited users get the notification.

Actual: only the original invited users get notices.


(cpradio) #3

Are you sure this is a bug? As I would find it very annoying if someone could invite me to various topics/PMs and force me to get notifications. Versus, they invite me, I’m notified of the invitation, and choose whether to visit and set my tracking level.


(Jay Pfaffman) #4

Yeah. That’s definitely right for topics.

I think that the expectation (or my client) was that sending a PM to a bunch of people and sending a PM to a bunch of people and adding another would have the same behavior.


(Jeff Wong) #5

I’m inclined to agree, any new PM directed to me is already set to auto watch, d so I’d expect the same logic applied for getting added to an existing PM.


(Jeff Atwood) #6

This would be an amazing tool for griefing other people. So think about it.


(Michael Brown) #7

How is that different from starting new PMs to grief people?


(Jeff Atwood) #8

Trust level 0 people can’t start PMs, for one thing.


(Michael Downey) #9

They can if they’re emailing into a PM as a staged user. And would trigger this problem if they CC other people on that incoming email (who also become staged users). Those CC’d folks then wouldn’t get copies of the responses when a Discourse user replies to the PM.

(I haven’t tested this yet but it seems like what would happen…)


(Jeff Atwood) #10

The staged / email scenario is a bit different, but other staged users don’t have website accounts, so that aspect is completely irrelevant, how would they be “notified” of anything. They get emails.


(Jeff Wong) #11

We don’t trust Trust Level 0 users to start new PMs, but we do trust them to invite other users into an existing PM? That seems a little strange to me personally.


(Jeff Atwood) #12

You can’t invite anyone into a PM, as I recall, until you reach TL2.


(Jeff Wong) #13

Ah alright. In that case, @supermathie 's question still stands – there doesn’t sound like much of a difference between autowatch griefing via starting a new PM, and autowatch griefing via inviting someone else.

My gut instinct for least astonishment is that if I were messaged with a new PM or pulled into an existing PM, it’d treat tracking on that topic in the same way.


(Sam Saffron) #14

I think our long term solution here is an intermediate step where you “accept” an invitation to a message and are not opted in automatically. That intermediate step could inform you that you will be watching the message and allow you to opt out.

It is more UI though.

In fact I think we should also allow people to specify a reason for inviting, optionally. “I think you know tons about Dolphins in the Sahara so you should totally be in this message”

Our current paradigm of, you are now in a PM, deal with it, kind of sucks under some use cases.

Although, “You are now in a PM, we are going to flood you with notifications by default, deal with it” can suck even more imo.


(cpradio) #15

Do we need more UI for this?

Just a thought, but what if the trigger for setting you to watching is you were invited and visited the message for the first time?

So long as I have to visit the message for it to set me to watching, I’m 100% okay with it changing my notification level to watching. I’m there, I can switch it back after reading the message and determining I’m not interested (most of the times it is just a couple of clicks).

This way you don’t need a new UI, I already showed some interest by clicking on the invite and then it is up to me to determine if I remain interested.

And this way, it is still based on me doing something with the invite and not just receiving the invite.


(Felix Freiberger) #16

I think this is crucial feature request; not being notified about replies in a PM you were invited to is one of the reasons why the messaging system in Discourse still feels a bit unreliable, especially when used in closed groups.

Given that inviting into a PM requires more trust then new PMs, I fail to see any reason against doing this, assuming that invites are blocked when Allow other users to send me private messages is unchecked. To be on the safe side, we should also probably block invites from users that the recipient has muted.


(Sam Saffron) #17

I think “closed groups” is probably enough to indicate we should at least make this a site setting to watch immediately on invite

I am also open to change it so you start watching after you first visit the topic, which is a compromise of sorts


#18

I’ve missed important conversations due to not being informed about PM topics I’ve been added to. This default behaviour is really undesirable and needs to change IMO


(Sam Saffron) #19

I got to close this topic, cause @anon2041049 had the exact dupe topic, no point keeping 2 of them


(Sam Saffron) #20