|
History
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Honey Fairweather - 22/Mar/07 03:59 PM
Linked as requested by Torley Linden.
If you supress group IM's why should you even bother to remain in the group? Tagging rights in your profile?
As it stands closing the IM window will stop all further IMs coming in for a period of time. I would rather see the "xxx xxx has closed this session..." message supressed or only displayed if the group IM window is open, not to by itself create a new group IM window or ever display in the normal text area. This brings up the idea that rather than supress group IM that there was an option to not merge group IM with chat instead. I would so like to keep some high traffic groups out of my chat and in their own window until I was ready to read it. Group chat is definitely not the only reason to be in a group! Groups offer a wealth of permissions/rights that cannot be accessed any other way. They help your members avoid autoreturn when building on your land and let them set a home on your land. This option would also allow people to join a communication-based group just for the group notices.
You can suppress group IMs reaching your chat by turning off the "IM in chat" option. While I think this is an important feature to add, the group IM does have it's uses.
I think this should have to be anabled by the group owner. In the roles menu "Allow this role to silence group IMs" So that people don't just mute it automatically and miss out on important communication. Thanks for the comments -
Jayden: as Lex said, groups do a whole lot more than allow group IMs. In my example: people join Fashion Consolidated to receive many notices per week from 200 designers on their new releases. Lex pointed out land uses etc too. WarKirby: yep indeed, I contemplated yet another enhancement request for groups on top of my 9 already (MISC-64 to MISC-72) to allow a group owner to "push" through an important IM or notice even when members had suppressed one or the other. I still might, but this one would have to be implemeted before that anyway. You may however find https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/MISC-65 of interest - it's kind of related. This is definately a function we need to see in groups in the future.. Eventhough my ONLY rule for my 700+ member group is to NOT use group IM for chat, there always will be people using it for just that.. You can warn them, and they might not do it again.. But with medium and large groups like mine there will always be new members abusing group IM..
I have had a LOT of members leave my group because someone HAD to use it for small chat again, or maybe misclicked in the IM window and put the message out in the wrong group.. On top of that I Myself have left more than 1 group because of JUST that... This is an option that should be implemented in group functionality VERY soon... This is one of my biggest gripes in SL.
There are times when I am not busy or when I am working alone in SL when I like nothing better than to tune in to and take part in Group discussions on my favorite topics. Howevre there are other times when I am in a social situation with others in SL when Group discussion is an intrusion I could do without. Because I connot mute the group (until I am free to listen) I have been forced to Leave a number of groups, that I really want to be involved with, to stop the group IM spamming me at inconvenient times. It is usually done in desperation during a hectic Group discussion making the situation worse by issuing "has left group" messages from everyone trying to stop the spam. This change would enable me to praticipate when I want and I would also know that when I participate I am not spamming others so I would feel more included to join in a discussion. AN EXTRA THOUGHT - It would also be nice if the "include IM in chat" option could be selected by individual IM window rather than a global setting. If the person in the room with me IMs a private comment I want see it in the chat immediately, but people or groups not there I would rather keep their stuff just in the IM window. and deal with as and when I have time. Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full. Please do fix this.
Imagine a quiet moment, an intimate moment, a meditational moment, a moment of intense concentration, when suddenly, *ding*, your screen is flooded with the clamor of thousands. Bob's comment above sums up my frustration perfectly. Also, his "AN EXTRA THOUGHT" is excellent. Dear Honey,
Many many thanks for setting up these group related issues. And you have hit the nail on the head with this one. In my group, Bisexuals in Second Life, the group chat is an important part of the group experience. The group chat is a support group, a social gathering place and a place to build friendships. But chat, from a large group, is also a great burden, and I have had good people leave because of it. If it ever becomes constant, I expect I would lose many. Having the option to turn the group IM on and off would be a real lifesaver for all of us. Props! --Brenda Archer What could make this even better is if iyou could manage this option in the group list, much like you can go though your friends list to set online status and such for certain people. That way you could easily see and change which groups you were currently listening for rather than having to go into a group's profile to check them individually.
I suppose that could be considered a different feature though, and could be used for multiple features. But it wouldn't be very useful until there were some group options for the average group member. I've been given permission to add this - just one of the many people leaving groups specifically because of this problem:
[20:06] Grazia Horwitz: hey honey... is there ANY way to turn off group chgat without having to leave the group.... sl is so annoying.. and the "left this session"messages make it even worse..... [20:11] Honey Fairweather: NO way Grazia. i'm campaigning for it and they say it's planned - see https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/MISC-64 - please add comments and vote [20:11] Honey Fairweather: i can tell you it's better to hit close than X though [20:12] Grazia Horwitz: hey sweety.. tried to vote.. but it wouldn't let me..... [20:12] Honey Fairweather: the massive flood of quit messages it new with 1.15 ad being looked at [20:12] Grazia Horwitz: yeah.. no such luck.. i'm going to leave the group temporarily honey... it abstructs my sl..... [20:12] Honey Fairweather: oh, you have to log in at http://jira.secondlife.com first [20:12] Honey Fairweather: the login links don't work ... [20:14] Honey Fairweather: can i quote this conversation on the log? i need to prove damage [20:14] Grazia Horwitz: yeah absolutely It would be really helpful to know if there's an upper limit on timescale planned to implement this - how far back in the queue is it? We're losing lots of people. This would be fantastic to have. Toggling group IMs for all groups isn't good enough. It would be great to do this selectively. Has my vote.
Yes, this would be neat to temporarily turn off incoming Group IMs when you are busy. Especially until the x has left session messages stop, and the 1.15 Groups bork has been fixed.
But a useful feature nontheless. I can think of nothing that would be urgent that a Group IM would address when otherwise engaged, anything truly important would be sent by personal IM. And to Jayden Beresford, I think we're talking temporary switching off here, but even so, group membership may be required eg renting a house or shop, but you don't need to hear chat or someone asking for their TV to be deeded lol. And of course not all groups are open enrollment so you can't get back in if you leave. Perhaps if Group Owner and/or Officr mesages were stored until not busy would be great so you don't miss an important announcement, but I can live without the rest. What I would prefer is the option that ONLY officers and owners have the right to START a group IM session. This way, group IM content is always relevant. Make it one of the group powers.
I don't want to hear people asking for TP's bc they are too lazy to search, or asking questions about things that only the owner would know, or commenting zOMG, that is so cute!!!! on a new release that was put out in notices, or being so rude as to promote someone else's shop/services, or just saying 'hi' for no reason. This is something I've and many others have wanted for a while. Here's how I'd like to see it implemented:
Individuals have the option to not receive group IMs. Important notices should be a notice not an IM since only those online at the time will ever see the IM and users can already supress group Notices so its not a valid argument against having the ability to supress group IMs. Owners when creating the group can choose to disable IMs in various levels: - No group IM at all. - Only owners can send an IM - Only owners can start an IM (but others can respond to an open session) - Assign/restrict IM ability (both start and respond) by role. - Ability to mute individuals from using group IM (for abuse of IMs or perhaps a probation period for when they first join) - this could be either/both start and respond. - Ability to supress the '... has left the session' messages (this more than the chats themselves has annoyed me and when it was added is when I started leaving groups as I never got any chat but would start getting these messages shortly after logging in) - Ability of a user to choose to disable auto-joining group IM sessions upon login. Better control over group IMs has definitely been wanted to ages; we'd like to see this feature too, generally speaking -- exact implementation is yet to be determined, but that's what comments here are for to help with.
Hello WorkingOnIt,
One suggestion I'd like to make is that the group IM suppression be group-by-group. This is because the same person might be in a small family group where IMs need to be always on, and also in a large interest group where they can stay off while one is working or otherwise preoccupied. It is true that some percentage of people would just turn off group IM forever for certain groups, but to me at least, that is not as bad as having them feel they have to leave the group completely. An owner/officer option to force IM to be on, when initiating a session, would permit making important announcements, and if someone abuses this they deserve to lose the group members. Just some speculations. Many thanks! Alright. my suggestion on how this should work. something I think everyone can agree on.
Firstly6, on the side of the group owner/officer. Three new options in the role abilites -Allow this role to send group IMs -Allow this role to recieve group IMs -Allow this role to mute group IMs (this would be greyed out an non-selectable until "-Allow this role to recieve group IMs" is ticked. If a role is not allowed to send group IMs. when they try to type in the group IM box, their message would be discarded by the system(and seen by noone), and they would recieve an automated message from second life "Error: Message failed. You do not have permission to send IMs to this group" If a role is allowed to send IMs, the ability to recieve IMs would be forced on too. So as to prevent people typing aimlessly and seeing nothing, while spamming other roles in the group. If ability to recieve IMs is disabled, likewise, ability to send them would be forcibly disabled too. When not allowed to recieve IMs, that role would somply become oblivious to all IM conversatiohns in the group. Their I window would NEVER be opened by that group. In group info, on the user end. Somewhere near the choose your title menu, there would be a little tick box. "Mute IMs from this group" Once ticked, the system would treat that user as if they did not have permission to recieve IMs, and they would simply hear nothing. But, this option would be greyed out and non selectable, if "Allow this role to mute group IMs" is NOT enabled for their role. This would be to prevent muting of chat in groups which are designed for it. The simple logic being, if a user does not want to recieve IMs, from a group whose purpose is conversation and chat, they should simply leave the group. Of course, the purpose of the group is to be decided by the owner. If permission to recieve IMs is removed from this rle, the option to allow muting, wqould be deselected too. But the user mute settings should stuick. SO that if someone has muted chat from a group, and permission to recieve IMs is revoked, then later reinstated, they would still not recieve IMs. If permission to send or recieve IMs is revoked while a user in that role is currently in a chat session, they would be ejected from the session and given the following error message "You have been ejected from this group IM session. Your permission to participate in IMs to this group has been revoked." Note that it SHOULD be possible to set a role to be able to recieve IMs, but not to send them.. This would allow group administrators to use it as a one way communication tool. In such situations where a group notice is not appropriate. One example I can think of would be a commander of a force engaged in a battle. The group IM could be used to communicate orders to the troops, where a group notice would not be useful as it is slower, and would be unnecessarily shown to offline members. And where allowing the troops to talk back could lead to confusion. If you're pacifist, replace the above with a manager, a team, and a competetive game. :P Wow, this is a looong comment. Anyways, I'm fairly sure I've covered all the bases here. Pretty much every possible situation that could arise. Needless to say, I'm including the ability to prevent sending IMs, and the ability to mute them, in a single plan, even though they are seprate proposals. I think they would work best in tandem. WorkingOnIt Linden, you want exact implementation, here it is ^^ Thanks for linking this one, and yes, very important. While a server-side solution would be great, we don't even have a client-side option in the interim! It gets very annoying. I mentioned this (but didn't realise an issue was posted) when I produced SVC-280 (only track required groups, allowing you to join far more).
Is it just me, or have Group IMs actually got a bit *worse* since the 1.17 update?
As a new Lucky Chair owner, I joined a couple of the busy Lucky Chair groups to find out more about them. With 1.16, I could turn off the Group IMs by closing the Group IM tab a couple of times (it didn't usually work the first time but seemed to work 2nd or 3rd try). Last night I did the same thing - closed the Group IM tabs - but kept getting the IM messages coming up on-screen mixed in with Chat. I made sure I had the Preference not to get Group IM showing in Chat History checked; still got the messages. It got so difficult to 'see' what I was doing (I have a laptop with a small screen) that I ended up leaving the groups just to stop the chat. So it seems some parts of Group IM functionality may be better with the upgrade, but (unless I have missed a preference or setting somewhere) others have got worse :-( P.S. I use a Mac iBook with OSX 10.x A temporary solution is to tear-off & minimize the particular IM session you want to mute. Because of being able to do that, I don't see this as a critical issue. It is a convenience.
Changed the summary to be more general, because we may not implement it exactly how it was suggested before, but the intent is clearly stated in Honey's original description. Definitely a hot, longtime issue, and linking it to an older internal issue we have too.
I also support the notion of IM rights being determined by Group roles, so that, for example. only owners or officers can send Group IMs or open a Group IM session. (I was under the vague impression that was already the case . . . imagine my surprise to find out that it isn't!)
I concur! There are groups I have left due to the inconvenience of group im's. I'd like some flexibility here.
I like the idea that only group officers can send im's since there are some groups in which the only time the im is supposed to be used is when an annoucement/notice is being made. I'd like to add that I'd like to be able to choose to only receive im's from group officers. In which case I am thinking that would mean generally I'd like to not receive group im's from avi's with the "everyone" title. As well as, a ticker so that we can mute group im's for a period of time. An example of when it would be helpful is while taking classes in world. Often residents open the chat history to follow along with the teacher, this would be a convenient time to mute group im's, while still allowing individual im's as a student may be receiving assistance from the teacher. When the class is over the ticker could be... un-ticked. I've created a Meta-Issue for all group IM/chat issues. I figure that someone will see them all grouped together and work on them all. :) MISC-387 is the Meta-Issue number.
Whoops sorry that meta-issue link is for all group DIALOG issues. there's another meta-issue for group IM/Chat issues. That's
Any one mention white-list before? It will be handy. It will mute the rest of the IMs.
Certain roles can be predefined in the white list drop down list. -Group owner -Officer in the group. -Friends from the Friend list. -etc... Cannot wait to see Group IM control been improved. Personally id like to see some kind of temporary muting. EG a way of shutting up a groups chat but without a checkbox (which would effectively be permanent until the check was removed, or client relogged in).
Perhaps it could take the form of a mute button (which changes to unmute until the time has elapsed) on the chat window itself, coupled with a setting (in settings) or a dropdown on the chatbox itself, to choose the duration of the mute. That way there can be a range of mute selection times, eg; permanent (although this one is probably best put on the group page itself) session (till next relog) 6 hour 3 hour 1 hour 30 mins 5 mins hth I ABSOLUTELY NEED THIS GROUP IM MUTE FOR MY GROUPS.
My group Krystal Epic 1 has over 8000 people. I end up constantly telling people to not use the group IM but with group notice not working and not going to emails, I can't even sent a message to everyone to not use the group IM. All I want is the ability to send group notice properly and mute group IMs. Whatever the fix is, please make sure they work for groups of the tens of thousands. one option 1) FRIENDS LIST -------- ALL USERS -------- USER TO BE MUTED --------------------GROUPOFUSERTOBEMUTED (X) so, the USERTOBEMUTED ca | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Feature
Open
Major
Allow group IMs to be muted
