Allow users to change the prefix of conversations others start

[Masons Monarch]

I tried to do this and it did not work. I think this is certainly a useful feature and helps keep track of the money conversations a lot of us get.

For the people disagreeing with this you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

This is simply to help you organize. The way it works is that you tag specific conversations with a prefix that ONLY YOU SEE and noone else. For example, if you had a commission, you could give it a "commission" prefix and that way you could easily search for it in your conversations.

 

[Cade]

I tried to do this and it did not work. I think this is certainly a useful feature and helps keep track of the money conversations a lot of us get.

I 100% agree, I've been trying to do this forever.

 

[Masons Monarch]

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say.
Generally, PM prefixes are ment for you to stay organized and don't act the same as thread prefixes.
I doubt it should be changed. It's an opening for new ways to scam and trick other people to think you are reliable.
You can easily fool/scam/obtain information about a new member not familiar with the system just by using the right prefixes.
Hope I was understandble.

Amokinio

What are you on about?

The prefixes show only to you to help you keep track of conversations.

I 100% agree, I've been trying to do this forever.

Indeed.

 

[Cade]

[QUOTE="Monarch, post: 4391888, member: 170392"
What are you on about?
The prefixes show only to you to help you keep track of conversations.

That's what I'm saying. As an addition, I believe it shouldn't be changed.[/QUOTE]
Why shouldn't this be changed? It's useful to keep your pms organized.

 

[Lotus]

It’d be weird to implement from a UI standpoint, considering conversation prefixes viewable by both parties already exist. Not sure how that interaction for both combined would work without over-cluttering things up.

 

[Sloth]

It’d be weird to implement from a UI standpoint, considering conversation prefixes viewable by both parties already exist. Not sure how that interaction for both combined would work without over-cluttering things up.

That’s why we have a brilliant developer and staff team to make those decisions if they decide to approve an idea like this. Unless the OP can come up with a solution to this on his own.

 

[Lotus]

That’s why we have a brilliant developer and staff team to make those decisions if they decide to approve an idea like this. Unless the OP can come up with a solution to this on his own.

I was thinking from a developer standpoint. Having too many features isn’t necessarily a good thing if it is at the expense of other aspects of the page.

You’re viewing the approval process from a purely theoretical perspective. It would only be approved if it can be practically implemented too.

 

[Sloth]

I was thinking from a developer standpoint. Having too many features isn’t necessarily a good thing if it is at the expense of other aspects of the page.

You’re viewing the approval process from a purely theoretical perspective. It would only be approved if it can be practically implemented too.

To an extent I have to approach it from a theoretical point because I’m not a developer. I’d have to hear what the developer who would be tasked with making this has to say about whether or not it would interfere with other features.

 

[Masons Monarch]

It’d be weird to implement from a UI standpoint, considering conversation prefixes viewable by both parties already exist. Not sure how that interaction for both combined would work without over-cluttering things up.

The idea is that only one party, the party adding the prefix to the conversation, will see the prefix they added, or perhaps "tagged the conversation with".

That’s why we have a brilliant developer and staff team to make those decisions if they decide to approve an idea like this. Unless the OP can come up with a solution to this on his own.

From a technical standpoint, no, I cannot, I can only communicate my idea. I agree that this could be quite difficult to implement but well worth it fr the members of this community.

I was thinking from a developer standpoint. Having too many features isn’t necessarily a good thing if it is at the expense of other aspects of the page.

You’re viewing the approval process from a purely theoretical perspective. It would only be approved if it can be practically implemented too.

Yes indeed, I'm not really sure how practical implementation would be, I suppose we'd just need to wait for Mick to review this suggestion.

To an extent I have to approach it from a theoretical point because I’m not a developer. I’d have to hear what the developer who would be tasked with making this has to say about whether or not it would interfere with other features.

I'll go ahead and tag Joshua C as he usually has something useful to add on the technical aspect of these suggestions.

 

[User]

I think it might be better if there was a way to A. add conversations to folders or B. add tags to conversations. Changing the prefix might confuse the recipient of the conversation, as it would affect both parties.

 

[Masons Monarch]

I think it might be better if there was a way to A. add conversations to folders or B. add tags to conversations. Changing the prefix might confuse the recipient of the conversation, as it would affect both parties.

That is sora what I mean. Tags/prefixes/what have you, which mark the purpose of the conversation.

As to the folders think, thats an interesting idea for sure, I wouldn't know if that is practical or possible to implement however.

 

[Joshua C]

A month or two back I suggested that we should make the conversations easier to browse.

Whereas you can see there's a search for the prefixes on forums, but not on the conversation area, I would like that implemented because none of us wants to search for a prefix "website" by going through dozens of pages of conversations.

 

[Mick]

At the moment we aren't planning to do any more development for our site until we can migrate to XF2 since we'll have to rewrite everything then. Perhaps once we move to XF2 and have fixed all the bugs that come with that and have more time for some new development we can work on this, but for the moment this isn't something that we can justify the development for.

Denied, thank you for the suggestion.