ANSWERED:Solved!

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Is this actually something the forum can do? Probably not, but I'm going to ask, because the current system is dumb.

 

Right now, if you send a PM to someone, then delete said PM... even if they reply, you don't get their message, because you left the "conversation."

 

Is there no way the forum can automatically re-add someone if they message you back? I don't want to keep my inbox cluttered with 34348034 PMs to people who might never answer, out of fear that if I do delete them, they might finally answer and I'd never see it.

 

Which is actually what I'd been doing since the forum updated, without realizing. Wonder how many breeding requests I sent out were answered kindly only for me to seemingly answer by completely ignoring them. -____-

Edited July 29, 2017 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Fuzzbucket]

I would bet it isn't. The messaging thing is as set up by invision. That was the kind of thing the last invision forum I was on that upgraded and regretted it gave up over. You can't archive, either

[pinkgothic]

51 minutes ago, angelicdragonpuppy said:

Right now, if you send a PM to someone, then delete said PM... even if they reply, you don't get their message, because you left the "conversation."

 

...

 

Argh oh my gosh please tell me you're joking. ;_; If that's honestly how it works, I've probably made my inbox 90% useless with the number of conversations I deleted.

 

And if that's honestly how it works, yes, please can we get this fixed? For example, there's an old 2G shimmer PM thread I definitely deleted and might yet get a follow-up PM with a shiny in it, which was meant for a friend. If I might have already gotten an answer while being totally unaware of it, that's really distressing. *checks progeny of shimmer nervously* *...relaxes* That was a tense moment. x_x

[Fuzzbucket]

As I said - I think this is out of TJ's hands. It's an invision thing. When he said he was upgrading I archived all mine, just in case...

[Terces]

In the event that the original suggestion is not doable... maybe there could be some kind of warning or notification that a user is replying to a one-person conversation? Maybe I'm stupid but I've done it a couple times and it wasn't obvious to me that the other person could never receive my reply. Perhaps even disabling replies when you're the only person remaining in the conversation - it confuses me that the system allows users to basically talk to themselves in PMs. Just a thought.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I wish I was joking, Pinkgothic. I deleted a lot of messages immediately following sending them, too. -___-

 

And no Terces you're not dumb. It does say you're leaving the conversation, but I always figured it would start again if replied to, because it IS so dumb that people can message just themselves. e___e

 

@Fuzz I wish I'd archived mine, I didn't bother after seeing PMs would be saved, not expecting they'd be buried under literally thousands of DELETED posts... whoever created this messaging system need a good bop on the skull. -___-

Edited July 29, 2017 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Peachycupcake525]

Now I am glad that I never delete PMs. If this is possible to fix, please do.

[Guillotine]

That... is a new kind of awful. Did the person who designed this system know how people use PMs?

 

 

I do hope it can be fixed, if only by notifying the person replying that they're in a one-person conversation...
 

[TJ09]

I think the most reasonable course of action is:

• Disallow replying to conversations in which you are the only participant, which should make it clear that the other person left.
• Remove the limitation on re-adding people to conversations.

The first one might be the only one necessary, since it means you can't accidentally send a reply without realizing the recipient won't see it. The second one is just a nice quality-of-life followup; instead of needing to go and start a new message thread, I see little harm in allowing the old one to come back. Presumably the limitation is there to prevent abuse (e.g. someone repeatedly adding you to a thread you don't want), but I doubt that's a real problem, and if it is, it can be handled through moderation on a case-by-case basis, instead of hard restrictions.

 

I haven't looked into the specific code, but my proposed changes are perfectly doable.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Ahhh yes, so it is doable! Hurray! I'd be happy with either of those, although both sounds best (unless it automatically re-adds people to a conversation, in which case the first doesn't matter)

 

Thanks for the quick reply!

[Fuzzbucket]

6 hours ago, TJ09 said:

I think the most reasonable course of action is:

• Disallow replying to conversations in which you are the only participant, which should make it clear that the other person left.
• Remove the limitation on re-adding people to conversations.

The first one might be the only one necessary, since it means you can't accidentally send a reply without realizing the recipient won't see it. The second one is just a nice quality-of-life followup; instead of needing to go and start a new message thread, I see little harm in allowing the old one to come back. Presumably the limitation is there to prevent abuse (e.g. someone repeatedly adding you to a thread you don't want), but I doubt that's a real problem, and if it is, it can be handled through moderation on a case-by-case basis, instead of hard restrictions.

 

I haven't looked into the specific code, but my proposed changes are perfectly doable.

 

Thanks TJ. I am vastly impressed by your powers. Is there POSSIBLY a way to get away from having that tiny box at the side of the page, and have conversations (ugh) displayed in a BIG column, like PMs used to be ?

[Terces]

Yeah, I'd be very happy with either (or both) of those options, thanks TJ!

[TJ09]

Should be good to go.

[Fuzzbucket]

Bless you, sir

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Yay, thanks! That was fast. <3