Microcosm Feature Suggestions

Also I am uncomfortable with the conversation ceding to exist at some point. I may want to refer to it again in the future.

From a pre sales point of view, not having a recognisable pm system could dissuade people from switching to microcosm from vbulletin etc.

Is it just me that isn't able to view sent PMs as it is on here? As in my sent items is empty...

probably wrong thread to ask but kind of on topic.

I think it's important to keep a record of messages, not just for trading but in general. I ofter refer back to messages to remind me what was discussed.

Also I am uncomfortable with the conversation ceding to exist at some point. I may want to refer to it again in the future.

Which bit didn't make sense?

If you don't delete it (remove yourself from it), you can always see it.
If you delete it (remove yourself from it), it physically gets nuked and will truly cease to exist.

That doesn't differ at all to what PMs do today. Don't delete it and they're always there, delete them and they physically get removed.

This is much much better than Facebook, where you delete something and they keep it forever anyway but just can't ever get it back. How does that fulfil the idea of it being private?

Is it just me that isn't able to view sent PMs as it is on here? As in my sent items is empty...

probably wrong thread to ask but kind of on topic.

I think it's important to keep a record of messages, not just for trading but in general. I ofter refer back to messages to remind me what was discussed.

Sent PMs is an option, change the option.

And no part of huddles means that they will disappear if you remain a part of them. No huddle is going to suddenly cease to exist without you explicitly saying you don't want to be a part of it anymore.

The whole thing I'm going for here is this:

1) Any information we hold can be requested through legal channels. If you have truly had a private conversation, and you think you have deleted it, then we really should have deleted it and made it cease to exist. To fully comply with your wishes, rather than just pretend to (i.e. Facebook).

2) The notion that a private message is private is a fallacy today as they can be forwarded without your permission or knowledge. With increased transparency about when your messages are forwarded and shared, I hope to reinforce and strengthen the notion of it being private. Fewer people will share and forward as it would be obvious, and thus the messages will actually be more private.

3) PMs to date have all been difficult to make sense of, lots of individual messages when they're really part of a conversation, grouping them together makes a hell of a lot of sense.

That's pretty much the entire thing.

There's nothing complex about it.

• Messages get threaded together into a conversation.
  
• Any participants of a private conversation sees who else can see that whole conversation.
  
• If all people in the conversation delete it, then we really truly will delete it.
  
  

So where's the concern?

2) The notion that a private message is private is a fallacy today, but with increased transparency about when your messages are forwarded and shared fewer people will do so and they will be more private.
...
So where's the concern?

Logically that makes perfect sense. In practice I think people are too accustomed to the idea of 1-to-1 conversations, even it's an illusion. Are you confident you can persuade all users to understand this?

Logically that makes perfect sense. In practice I think people are too accustomed to the idea of 1-to-1 conversations, even it's an illusion. Are you confident you can persuade all users to understand this?

That's really the best question.

Which is why I'm not going to call them Private Messages.

It would take re-naming them, introducing them in a way that people are comfortable with, and good UX.

I'll be testing this out in the next few weeks, and coming up with designs... so we'll see then.

If I'm wrong, we can implement what we have today. But it is a shitty second-rate solution. Things like threading messages into a conversation won't work and will be complex and hard-to-understand because I can't create a single conversation out of messages that all have different permissions and visibility.

I do think this proposal is a much simpler one, easier to understand, and with more benefits to privacy than not. It's totally counter-intuitive to suggest that more visibility = more privacy, but in this case I think that's what it does.

Oh, and in about a month's time I'll be wanting a whole load of people to come in and try out the new interfaces. It'll be just in the design phase, so we'll be looking for feedback on all of the proposals on the new design.

^in

Sounds good, maybe some kind of check box to say you'd like to be asked before more people can be added to a huddle if you consider it a more private subject. I know the information within could still be copy pastad but it would reassure people that there isn't an easy way to just "let people in" to a conversation.

Play around with the idea of mods on the huddle.
And only mods can add ppl to the huddle, change attributes of the huddle - like fb groups, or the admin of a whatsapp grp.

Mid-Nov - In on prelim UAT. Going in to offices?
l can help capture feedback.

Dropbox has this thing, that when you initially share a folder you can "Allow the person/people you have shared the folder with to add additional people".

By default it is selected, you could re-share or extend the selection of people whom have access. But it allows the initiator to have the choice at that moment in time to make a share be limited and final.

Dropbox has this thing, that when you initially share a folder you can "Allow the person/people you have shared the folder with to add additional people".

By default it is selected, you could re-share or extend the selection of people whom have access. But it allows the initiator to have the choice at that moment in time to make a share be limited and final.

A bit like Google Docs privacy, except they default do invitees only, and don't list NSA employees as default members of the list.

Ah crap. Just came to point out a feature, then realised it was already implemented. Maybe it should be signposted more though?

Totally didn't know that the next to a name in a quote links to the OG post.
puts dunce hat on

Totally didn't know that the next to a name in a quote links to the OG post.
puts dunce hat on

It can also link to non-OG posts. We don't discriminate against noobs.

(I've only just seen OG suggested as Old-Guy, I'd always assumed it was an abrv. of OriGinal)

'On here' it means 'Old Guard'. :)

Other misconstruals are conceivable.

I'm curious to know what will happen to the current social groups when the switch is made. I've recently found that very useful and was wondering how the present groups might be incorporated?

If at all :-/

They'll become Microcosms. Effectively to be promoted to forums, in the parlance of vBulletin.

If there were special rules about membership "Tom, Dick and Harry are members", then that would be preserved, though guests could read it and the person who created a social group would gain the ability to add people to the Microcosm.

Ok, cheers Velocio :-)

One idea i would like for the microcosm app is the ability for certain threads/subforums to be automatically dowloaded (minus pictures) to my phone so i could be read when on a the tube/ferry/plane when you don't have data connectivity.

Initially it's a web thing, but when we go native I want to do things like that.

As a rather lazy person who visits pretty regularly, would something along the lines of 'open all subscribed threads with unread posts in new tabs' as a button

or the first 20 maybe etc

I'm not even sure how that could be implemented.

I think that would be enormously useful for some people, who like to read like that, and a bloody mess for everyone else.

Can't you do that with a grease monkey script?

Events are in my view the most under appreciated functionality of all community platforms, so i hope microcosm can boss them.

Ticketing.. functionality that prevents someone from confirming event attendance before they've ponied up some cash.. probably though paypal or some other payment portal

Actually screw paypal.. lets future proof this sucker.
Bitcoin payment?
https://coinbase.com/docs/api/overview

Glad the importance of user identity is being addressed
Although seems completely at odds with the content is king approach.

Content is king, because it's all communication between people and that is what builds the bonds within a community.

The value of content is the substance behind its creation.
(thank you Lynchman)

Not sure you can force your epistemological outlook on another regardless of functionality you imploy.

Apparently to some name and identify aren't linked afterall.....

The club is a distinct entity from the forum, but shares the name.

Concentrate on functionality that helps users build relationships and they can figure out whose 'real' and who isnt for themselves.