Ignore Improvements

[ahc]

I think the ignore feature needs a few more features to be useful.  Right now it really serves no purpose other than to make members angry/upset when they try to use it and find out it doesn't really serve a purpose.  Most sites give you the ability to actually block someone, preventing them from seeing your content or your account.  My members have been begging me for improvements to this feature or to implement a true blocking system, but it's odd to me that previous people who have requested this are never responded to, or are basically told just use the ignore feature as is and act like an adult about it.

The internet if filled with millions of people of all ages, and just because someone is an adult doesn't mean they'll act like one.  I don't think it's unreasonable to provide a little more in terms of someone feeling more secure about their privacy.

User A ignores User B, so all applicable content by User B is now hidden to User A, and User B is unable to send private messages to User A.  However, User B doesn't know they are being ignored by User A and has no restrictions given to them.  The ignore system works basically as if User A is the one being blocked from User B's content which seems backwards.  User B should be aware they are blocked and have the consequence of User A basically not existing to them in any capacity.

My members are requesting these common blocking features:

• A blocked/ignored user cannot see the content of the blocker.
• A blocked/ignored user cannot view the account profile of the blocker.
• A blocked/ignored user cannot tag/mention the blocker in any content.

If there is a plugin or app that already implements these improvements, please direct me to it.  If not, I can assure anyone who creates one will receive immediate downloads/sales.

[Adriano Faria]

There is a lot of requests. A few:

 

[AlexWright]

Yes, agree, we need this. I've requested it:

 

[ahc]

4 hours ago, Adriano Faria said:

There is a lot of requests. A few:

If there are no plans to make changes to the Ignore features in 4.5, is this something you could whip up and put in the marketplace for purchase?  Or is this not something that can be fixed by us?

Edited March 9, 2020 by ahc

[jesuralem]

I think the ignore feature work as designed : when you ignore someone you just don't see their current anymore.

When you ignore someone in real life, you are the one acting as if they do not exist, and they can see you... So it is the same.

What you request is an other feature in my opinion... We can call it block. And I agree users often expect this from the ignore feature. In the end, I just think it would nice to have both features and let the user choose.

On a technical aspect, the ignore feature could be reused with a second list of ignored users for each user, containing users that blocked the user. That list would be non manageable for the user.

[Adriano Faria]

2 minutes ago, jesuralem said:

When you ignore someone in real life, you are the one acting as if they do not exist, and they can see you... So it is the same.

You can see the ignored member. Ignored member can see you. You can see their profile. They can see yours. You have your activity streams bumped dozens of time if the ignores member posts dozens of time.  So the only advantage is to “hide” the content in the topic but still shows in search and activity streams?

It can be better. Believe. 

[ahc]

5 hours ago, jesuralem said:

When you ignore someone in real life, you are the one acting as if they do not exist, and they can see you... So it is the same.

No, it's not the same.  You ignore someone "in real life" and they know you're ignoring them because.. well.. you're ignoring them.

The ignore feature on Invision does not have the same effect.  It feels more of a consequence for the person doing the ignoring when it should be the other way around.  It has zero benefit to those who want to truly ignore someone and never have to deal with them again, and it's why my community just stopped wasting their time trying to use it. 

Those who didn't want to be associated with certain people and had no option to prevent them from constantly being in their online business have decreased their activity on the site because, like a broken record, the ignore feature bares no consequence on the user who is exhibiting behavior another member disagrees with when it should in some capacity.  They should be aware that they can no longer associate with a user when they attempt to access anything associated to that user, and maybe reflect on why it happened in the meantime.

We can have these improvements on the same ignore system in place without having to argue semantics on what to actually call it or compare it to.  There's no way that truncating a few posts behind a basic warning is the best Invision can do to give members more power over their accounts and their experiences.

Edited March 9, 2020 by ahc

[PatrickRQ]

What is the discussion about. IPS should add other option as requested and every forum admin may decide how to use the ignore feature. I sometimes doubt whether single additional option that could be done within 20 minutes is worth multiple topics and writing a book, no offense!

Edited March 9, 2020 by PatrickRQ

[TDBF]

7 hours ago, jesuralem said:

I think the ignore feature work as designed : when you ignore someone you just don't see their current anymore.

When you ignore someone in real life, you are the one acting as if they do not exist, and they can see you... So it is the same.

What you request is an other feature in my opinion... We can call it block. And I agree users often expect this from the ignore feature. In the end, I just think it would nice to have both features and let the user choose.

On a technical aspect, the ignore feature could be reused with a second list of ignored users for each user, containing users that blocked the user. That list would be non manageable for the user.

But this isn't like real life though, isn't it, and that's not the way this should work.

If I put you on ignore, you shouldn't see any of my content and I should see any of yours, period!

There shouldn't even be a way for me to take a wee peek at your posts, as that just defeats the purpose of the Ignore feature.

[jesuralem]

As i said, i thin that if you put me on ignore, you should not see any of my content, not the other way around. Because you are the one ignoring me.

What you want is the ability to "hide" from someone, not to ignore someone. As i said these are two different features. I am not saying the "hide" or "block" feature is not worth it, it definitely is, but it should definitely not replace the "ignore" one.

8 hours ago, Adriano Faria said:

You have your activity streams bumped dozens of time if the ignores member posts dozens of time.  So the only advantage is to “hide” the content in the topic but still shows in search and activity streams?

You are right, activity from people you ignored should definitely not appear in your activity streams or notifications.

[Hexsplosions]

Instead of debating whether the 'ignore' function works properly, just provide feedback on what you want to be able to do. You do not need to give it a name, you simply need to state your use case(s).

There may be problems with creating a true "block" feature for community software like IPS. If you check blocking capabilities on sites where it already exists (I'm specifically thinking about social media) it serves as more of a privacy tool. It prevents others from being able to see your profile content, send you messages or view your posts. That's fine in a system where your content is entirely your own and the only impact is one less viewer of your content, but in community software like IPS this could create problems:

1. There will be apparent gaps in conversations to users that have been blocked, for example:
   • Blocked
     • Person 1: Does anybody know how to install this program?
     • Person 2: Yes, you install it by double clicking on it.
     • Person 1: But then I get a warning about it being suspicious.
     • Person 2: That's OK, you just need to add it as an exception.
     • Person 1: Thanks
   • Unblocked
     • Person 1: Does anybody know how to install this program?
     • Person 2: Yes, you install it by double clicking on it.
     • Person 1: But then I get a warning about it being suspicious.
     • Person 2: That's OK, you just need to add it as an exception.
     • Person 3: No, don't do that! It's actually infected and a new version needs to be uploaded! Delete it and run a virus scan.
     • Person 1: Thank
2. There will be useful topics that might not be seen:
   • Blocked
     • How to install this program.
     • How to open the program.
     • How to uninstall the program.
   • Unblocked
     • Warning: current version infected - uninstall it and run a virus scan.
     • How to install this program.
     • How to open the program.
     • How to uninstall the program.

These are of course just examples I can think of, but I imagine there'd be gaps all over the place.

[ahc]

With every change comes possible issues, I completely agree with that sentiment, but I don't think fearing hypotheticals should be the only strategy to approach this.  IPS is indeed a community software, but not everyone uses it in the same way.  What's true for one person is untrue for the next.  Forums themselves aren't even included in the core package, it's an add-on. 

In my particular case, all important information is provided via the pages system, something that is not effected in anyway by the current ignore system or any suggestions for it.  We do not allow content within our forums that would make your theory applicable for us, and I am sure it goes the same for more clients.

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by ahc

[Hexsplosions]

6 hours ago, ahc said:

With every change comes possible issues, I completely agree with that sentiment, but I don't think fearing hypotheticals should be the only strategy to approach this.  IPS is indeed a community software, but not everyone uses it in the same way.  What's true for one person is untrue for the next.  Forums themselves aren't even included in the core package, it's an add-on. 

Oh I'm not suggesting that my examples should be blockers, but in providing them I'm trying to help the debate flow in a more productive direction - such as possible solutions to the examples I posted or confirming that completely different use cases could be applied.

I for one would like a block feature, but my use case is one of privacy.  I don't care if content can be seen, but I would like the ability for users to block messages from, and disable access to view their profile for, specific individuals in a single button-click.

Edited March 10, 2020 by The Heff

[ahc]

Bumping this up because I still think improvements need to be made to the ignore feature.

I'm now having to deal with members reporting each other because people they've ignored are retaliating by down voting all of their recent content to lower their reputation.  There needs to be a way for the person doing the ignoring's content to be hidden to those that are being ignored.  They shouldn't still be able to antagonize people that want nothing to do with them.  It still doesn't make sense to me that that a community platform has no proper tools for the member to control their experience.

Edited July 25, 2020 by ahc

[Chippy365]

On 7/25/2020 at 6:29 AM, ahc said:

Bumping this up because I still think improvements need to be made to the ignore feature.

I'm now having to deal with members reporting each other because people they've ignored are retaliating by down voting all of their recent content to lower their reputation.  There needs to be a way for the person doing the ignoring's content to be hidden to those that are being ignored.  They shouldn't still be able to antagonize people that want nothing to do with them.  It still doesn't make sense to me that that a community platform has no proper tools for the member to control their experience.

We've had issues with this too.

We migrated from PHPBB which had a true blocking system. I've found the implementation of IPB's ignore system lacking, really. When people look to ignore, they're looking to block them as they expect the feature to be similar to the blocking systems present on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, but also of other forums such as PHPBB.

We've had various forum users on our community say that the ignore feature is bugged, when in actual fact it's the implementation that should be looked at because users are expecting it to work the same as a block feature.