This is somewhat related to http://www.snooth.com/talk/topic/po... (PS, Philip, am I in the right category for site feature suggestions? I think I see how Wine Talk might have been the right one for that, but I'm just checking...), but kind of coming out the other side of the equation, I think that Talk would benefit from an in-site way to respond to someone directly.
I know that this, on its face, counters my personal distaste for capturing personal interactions within networking websites (I. Hate. Zuck. And also I don't like getting "personal" messages through his website.), but bear with me here, please.
In various technical and professional (e)mailing lists I frequent, it is often deemed Appropriate to take a conversation "off-list", because it's not worth every subscriber's mental bandwidth to follow the whole thing, and then someone (in those cases, the person who asked for help, generally) comes back to the forum and summarizes the responses and solution.
That's all very cold and clinical for web2.ohgivemeabreak, never mind for the discussion of vino, but the idea that some things might as well be said among friends, but needn't get in the way of the overall Thread of conversation merits consideration. I think that it would be useful for Talk to make it easier than it is to respond to a given poster explicitly referencing something that they'd said in a Talk thread. The whole "summarize" rubbish isn't necessary here (especially since Snooth's direct messaging permits both public and private messaging, of which the former provides all that's necessary in this context for a summary), but a UI tweak to let me message another user *about* a given forum post should be simple to implement and intuitive to use.
Yes, I can do this by clicking on the username and then "Send whoever a message", but fostering a fluid transition from a large group to direct (or group? that'd take some reimplementation...) conversation with fewer steps and less conscious barriers is probably a good idea.
There's a missing step there, which is group messaging. It's not clear to me that's a step worth implementing, but it does fit in that puzzle I just described. I think it's clearly less important than making it trivial to link a Talk (explicitly public, so anybody should be able to) or direct (with all participants' consent) conversation to a given wine, region, vintage, usw. as a text review. This fluidity of communication is what makes all the social network absurdities morally valuable.
- Reply by Philip James, Mar 13, 2008.
OK that was freaky, that copied my response from a different topic.
What i was about to say, was, excellent idea Gr, it spurred some good strategic thinking today and Chris will be working on it soon. We've expanded the scope a bit so i think you'll be pleased with what we're doing here
- Reply by Chris Carpita, Mar 24, 2008.
I look forward to working on this! (I am also writing this to test something)
- Reply by Chris Carpita, Apr 10, 2008.
Actually, we're not addressing exactly what GR is talking about, which is easy private-messaging of users on talk. That would just be one link next to a person's picture that would open up the messaging form, or open a 'quick' message bubble. On the other hand, the discuss-this-wine feature is well under way, I'm proud to say.
- Reply by Philip James, Apr 11, 2008.
Yeah, what Gr was asking for may come not too far afterwards. We were thinking that if you clicked on the users avatar or screen name a drop down would give you choices like:
- View user's profile
- Send user a message
- Flag user as a swearing #$%