Speed up Private Messaging

[+TheWorldNewsMedia.org 141]

I just had an interaction on my site with a newbie.... I want to "message" her privately and fast...

I found the private message board old, slow and clunky.

I thought about getting CometChat.......

Then my next thought was .... what would FACEBOOK do?

Modern sites make private messaging as fast as CHAT.....

Why can't we do that?

We should make everything as fast as possible nowadays.

Shaving seconds off of every interaction is necessary in today's world.

Let's speed up out entire enterprise to "real-time"

[Mr 13 551]

Yes, private messaging should be implemented as real-time chat.

[+Dolphin. 150]

End-to-end encryption please!

[+PoC2 71]

18 hours ago, TheWorldNewsMedia.org said:

Shaving seconds off of every interaction is necessary in today's world.

I don't think it is.

Always better when a reply is considered and some time is taken to compose it.

[+TheWorldNewsMedia.org 141]

On 11/4/2018 at 5:50 AM, PoC2 said:

I don't think it is.

Always better when a reply is considered and some time is taken to compose it.

Maybe you are correct. These forum posts are added WAY too quickly.

I am now thinking that paper and ink is the only viable option.

Wait... paper and ink made people write their thoughts too quickly.

Definitely clay tablets is the best way to go.

Thank you for your insight.

[+PoC2 71]

7 minutes ago, TheWorldNewsMedia.org said:

Thank you for your insight.

Ignoring your sarcasm.

7 minutes ago, TheWorldNewsMedia.org said:

Wait... paper and ink made people write their thoughts too quickly.

I use paper and ink, and no it doesn't

I also know clay tablets - likely more than anybody here. Say what you like about their speed, but I guarantee nothing you write on these forums or anything you write anywhere will still be around in 4,000 years. You will be forgotten, and dust, like the rest of us.

The clay tablets remain.

 

[+Joel R 5,283]

On 11/4/2018 at 8:50 AM, PoC2 said:

I don't think it is.

Always better when a reply is considered and some time is taken to compose it.

Speed of technology is different from speed of thought.  

He is requesting a fast interaction from server ("speed of technology").  That has nothing to do with speed of composing a well thought out post.  

[+PoC2 71]

Speed of technology facilitates speed of thought.

I give you.... Facebook...

[+Joel R 5,283]

56 minutes ago, PoC2 said:

Speed of technology facilitates speed of thought.

I give you.... Facebook...

No, that's entirely untrue.  Speed of technology has to do with the posting speeds, server connections, and UIX.  Whether you're Harvard University or The Economist magazine or a leading enterprise, you're going to demand high speed connections for a modern web. 

Facebook is a platform that facilitates short form communication, so you're going to see more short form communication.  But short form communication can still contain thoughtful commentary. I'm part of some Facebook groups that have really good conversations. It nothing to do with speed of technology.  

A dumb person doesn't become smarter even if you slow them down by an hour.  And a smart person doesn't become dumb because they type fast.  

Edited January 4, 2019 by Joel R

[+AndyF 5,270]

37 minutes ago, Joel R said:

you're going to demand high speed connections for a modern web

I tried a little experiment a few months ago, to use the web via a dial-up (phone) line, as it used to be back then. Yes you can still get this erm 'method' but in my case it was a pay per minute thing so I was only using it for just under an hour.

I can tell you it was a very bad experience and sites took minutes in some cases to actually load, a lot slower than they would of done 'back then' but this is down to modern sites not expecting someone to attempt to read data at such a low speed rather than an issue. I guess all I am saying here is modern websites = require a half sensible connection. Mines actually very slow compared to some but its quite fast enough for everything I need...

Edited January 4, 2019 by AndyF

[+PoC2 71]

43 minutes ago, Joel R said:

No, that's entirely untrue.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.

[Mark 6,584]

On 11/4/2018 at 10:16 PM, Dolphin. said:

End-to-end encryption please!

End-to-end encryption is not really possible as there is no method for storing the keys in a browser with reliable persistence (unlike in a mobile app). Note that "secret comversations" in Facebook Messenger, for example, can only be created and viewed on their mobile app, not their website.

[+day_ 652]

7 hours ago, Mark said:

End-to-end encryption is not really possible as there is no method for storing the keys in a browser with reliable persistence (unlike in a mobile app). Note that "secret comversations" in Facebook Messenger, for example, can only be created and viewed on their mobile app, not their website.

Mobile app you say, hmmm....now there’s an idea....

💡 

😃