using the message center

[+two bison]

just received a message and got to wondering ... how do I delete a message or message thread?

[Pup Patrol]

just received a message and got to wondering ... how do I delete a message or message thread?

 

You can't.

 

You can "hide" it.

 

Help Center → My Account → My Account and Profile

2.10. Message Center - Frequently Asked Questions

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=664

 

I want to delete a message. How do I do that?

 

We do not currently allow players to permanently delete a message.

 

You can, however, "Hide Conversation" which will cause the message thread to disappear until the next time you start a conversation with that player.

 

B.

[+two bison]

Thanks ... can't help but wonder about the why? behind that

[Pup Patrol]

I wondered, too, then remembered that finders of Earthcaches might be contacting the CO and sending answers via the Message Center.

 

It wouldn't be a good thing to be able to delete messages in that case.

 

I'm not sure how this is going to end up, storage-wise. Just how many messages can the system hold?

 

B.

[+Touchstone]

Hiding works fine for me. I don't see it, so it's as good as deleted as far as I'm concerned.

[+dprovan]

just received a message and got to wondering ... how do I delete a message or message thread?

 

You can't.

 

You can "hide" it.

Perhaps this is a good time to get some clarification: all I see is a list of users, not a list of conversations, so from what I'm seeing, I can only hide a user. If a user starts a second conversation while I'm having a first conversation with them, are there two entries in the list allowing me to select which conversation to hide?

 

Also, if I hide a conversation, does that mean I won't see any responses after I hid it, or does it pop back to life if something else is sent?

[+kunarion]

from what I'm seeing, I can only hide a user. If a user starts a second conversation while I'm having a first conversation with them, are there two entries in the list allowing me to select which conversation to hide?

 

Also, if I hide a conversation, does that mean I won't see any responses after I hid it, or does it pop back to life if something else is sent?

There's a tiny red "X" beside each user name. You hide by user. When the conversation is continued by either party, the name unhides -- the entire scrolling thread reappears.

 

I don't see a way to unhide with a click, the user name must be typed again, or go back through the user's Profile. Maybe a future update will have a drop-down list or some other quick way to return to a conversation. For now, if you may ever contact a given user again, don't hide that one.

 

I kinda-sorta thought that the plan was to integrate the MC into cache pages. So someone might ask "Is it in the lockbox? I have the combination 564, but is that correct? It won't open." -- or whatever cache-specific messages between CO and Finder that would not be suitable as a log for all to read. Now I don't know what the plan was. As mentioned, I also don't know how many messages per user you get before the thread bogs down or "fills up". At best, there will be a lot of scrolling around after a while, indexed only by user.

Edited July 13, 2015 by kunarion

[+niraD]

Perhaps this is a good time to get some clarification: all I see is a list of users, not a list of conversations, so from what I'm seeing, I can only hide a user. If a user starts a second conversation while I'm having a first conversation with them, are there two entries in the list allowing me to select which conversation to hide?

Currently, the MC supports only a single conversation per other user. You can start discussing another topic with that user, but there is no way to have the new topic show up in a new conversation. Everything you discuss with that other user is considered a single conversation.

 

Also, if I hide a conversation, does that mean I won't see any responses after I hid it, or does it pop back to life if something else is sent?

As soon as either of you sends another message to the other, the conversation is no longer hidden

[+K13]

Why can't all messages related to a certain cache be grouped into a certain thread? If you are in an area with a prolific hider, you could have tens or maybe hundreds of messages to that same cache owner. How will either of you be able to find prior conversation about a specific cache? This is NUTS!!

[+dprovan]

Why can't all messages related to a certain cache be grouped into a certain thread? If you are in an area with a prolific hider, you could have tens or maybe hundreds of messages to that same cache owner. How will either of you be able to find prior conversation about a specific cache? This is NUTS!!

Use e-mail.

[knowschad]

I'm not sure how this is going to end up, storage-wise. Just how many messages can the system hold?

I don't know how many, either, but I do know that it is a real pain in the butt to try to "hide" a couple dozen messages. Best to not let them accumulate for very long before hiding.

[+kunarion]

it is a real pain in the butt to try to "hide" a couple dozen messages. Best to not let them accumulate for very long before hiding.

I was considering leaving mine un-hidden due to it being such a pain to un-hide after hiding. Especially if I might forget which conversation was which, and must send a new message to get a hidden conversation restored. In order to keep things sorted and searchable, maybe I'd save the emails (the notifications of the Messages) on the phone as well as on the PC.

[+GeoBain]

It's not unlike texting, which I'm sure is where the design comes from. The difference being that my text app allows me to delete messages. But I don't think I ever delete old messages. I know there is a preset limit at which my old texts roll off to make room for new ones. Perhaps that is how the Message Center is designed.

[+narcissa]

Is there a mechanism for blocking unwanted messages from bad people?

[Pup Patrol]

Is there a mechanism for blocking unwanted messages from bad people?

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=664

 

How can I block another player from messaging me?

 

With the new Message Center, you have the option to block another player. The other player will not be able to see that you have blocked them.

 

Hover over the player's username, click the red circle with the line through it and follow the prompts to block the player.

 

 

B.

[+Car54]

I'm confused - is blocking another player the same thing as hiding a conversation? In other words, if I've hidden a conversation from Narcissa, say, does that have the same effect as blocking Narcissa? (No offense to Narcissa. )

 

Mrs. Car54

[+narcissa]

I'm confused - is blocking another player the same thing as hiding a conversation? In other words, if I've hidden a conversation from Narcissa, say, does that have the same effect as blocking Narcissa? (No offense to Narcissa. )

 

Mrs. Car54

 

No, blocking me and hiding my messages are different.

[+two bison]

It's clearer and clearer to me that I won't be wanting to the message center. If I get a message through the MC I'm going to respond via e-mail ... if I choose to reply. It's simple. I get an e-mail, I choose to reply, I get a response and the back and forth continues on that one topic until it has run it's course. Next time? New thread, not hashed up by the first one. Just imagine, two folks could communicate on two different topics in overlapping times and they wouldn't be mixed together. E-mail sounds better to me.

[knowschad]

it is a real pain in the butt to try to "hide" a couple dozen messages. Best to not let them accumulate for very long before hiding.

I was considering leaving mine un-hidden due to it being such a pain to un-hide after hiding. Especially if I might forget which conversation was which, and must send a new message to get a hidden conversation restored. In order to keep things sorted and searchable, maybe I'd save the emails (the notifications of the Messages) on the phone as well as on the PC.

This IS an improvement, right? Right? Isn't it?

[knowschad]

Is there a mechanism for blocking unwanted messages from bad people?

No, I cannot block you, as far as I can tell.

[knowschad]

I think that most of us that frequent these forums have come to the conclusion that our opinion on matters like this is pretty much ignored. However, I would like to know how many unique members have voiced negative or skeptical opinions here about the MC, and how you interpolate those numbers into actual numbers... how many geocachers do those of us that are vocal about it represent, statistically?

[+kunarion]

it is a real pain in the butt to try to "hide" a couple dozen messages. Best to not let them accumulate for very long before hiding.

I was considering leaving mine un-hidden due to it being such a pain to un-hide after hiding. Especially if I might forget which conversation was which, and must send a new message to get a hidden conversation restored. In order to keep things sorted and searchable, maybe I'd save the emails (the notifications of the Messages) on the phone as well as on the PC.

This IS an improvement, right? Right? Isn't it?

One way the MC really shines (aside from being a thrill for the SMS-chat crowd), is it's pretty much possible to communicate with someone who otherwise can't be contacted by email (or if you can't), especially if either party is not actively trying to not be contacted. The App of course has popup notifications, and it's easy to tell the message is live and can be read (as opposed to email where you don't know until a reply arrives). The web site has a little yellow dot to show a message is waiting, but that's the site programmers' idea of a visible notification, not necessarily the only way it could be presented.

 

Another advantage of the MC is there's plain evidence that the message occurred, and all the recipient has to do is attempt one of the several ways to read it. It's available, and both parties can forevermore read exactly what the message says. No email settings needed.

 

For the rest of us, if the sender's email address is posted, and if it is sent with each message, and if email is tested and assured to be functioning with the site most of the time, and if the recipient has similar things in effect, go ahead and use email. Not necessarily "PM" with its built-in "No-Reply" Geocaching.com address, but actual email to real addresses. If you can't be bothered to ensure your email works, bite the bullet and check the MC once in a while. The previously hidden conversation is automatically unhidden at that time. Your first reply should be "my actual email address is [*****], I will respond from that, please reply to that address". All the weirdness and functionlessness of the MC goes away, because you're using email directly. You will also lose the online record of the conversation, if it's possible for GS to see it to solve disputes faster, but you can report emails to solve disputes, too.

 

If the recipient prefers the online record provided by MC, maybe due to him getting a lot of "I didn't get your email" replies or whatever, ratchet the angst down a bit, and use MC with that person. If instead they are just playing with App features, go the email route. A connected phone can send and receive email just as well as "messaging", so go ahead and state your request.

 

And if one is trying to prevent communication and enjoys the chaos of "PM" alone, sorry. The new MC causes messages to get through. There's no excuse anymore, to say you didn't get the message. It's right there. Go read it.

Edited July 14, 2015 by kunarion

[+on4bam]

One way the MC really shines (aside from being a thrill for the SMS-chat crowd), is it's pretty much possible to communicate with someone who otherwise can't be contacted by email (or if you can't),

 

Verifying the email address when registering and periodic checks could (SHOULD!) have fixed that. Register, get activation email, activate.. done

 

The App of course has popup notifications, and it's easy to tell the message is live and can be read (as opposed to email where you don't know until a reply arrives).

 

The app? Never used it, don't have and don't want it. My Oregon 600 will do fine for caching. I wouldn't dream using a smartphone with it's limited battery life on a cachingday.

 

Another advantage of the MC is there's plain evidence that the message occurred, and all the recipient has to do is attempt one of the several ways to read it. It's available, and both parties can forevermore read exactly what the message says. No email settings needed.

 

But you need to visit the website and have more steps to complete. With email, it's there, hit reply .. done.

 

You will also lose the online record of the conversation, if it's possible for GS to see it to solve disputes faster, but you can report emails to solve disputes, too.

 

I don't want my conversations on GS servers.

 

If the recipient prefers the online record provided by MC, maybe due to him getting a lot of "I didn't get your email" replies or whatever, ratchet the angst down a bit, and use MC with that person.

 

I didn't get that message then or I ignore it. Same result.

 

And if one is trying to prevent communication and enjoys the chaos of "PM" alone, sorry. The new MC causes messages to get through. There's no excuse anymore, to say you didn't get the message. It's right there. Go read it.

 

When on holiday I might not visit the website for 4 weeks because of no/slow/expensive internet so I could honestly say I didn't see/get a message. Email on the other hand is low data use and fast. Other times.. well...

[+dprovan]

One way the MC really shines (aside from being a thrill for the SMS-chat crowd), is it's pretty much possible to communicate with someone who otherwise can't be contacted by email (or if you can't),...

I'm still having a hard time imagining a cacher that doesn't validate the e-mail but then turns around and religiously reads messages. Has that actually worked for anyone?

 

I wouldn't know since I've never run into a case where I wanted to communicate with someone with unvalidated e-mail, and I'm hard pressed to imagine why if I did run into that case, I'd do more than shrug.

 

...especially if either party is not actively trying to not be contacted.

And now we know that anyone actively trying to not be contacted can just block anyone that tries to send them a message. (Of course, anyone that didn't want to be contacted would just ignore their messages to begin with...)

 

The App of course has popup notifications, and it's easy to tell the message is live and can be read (as opposed to email where you don't know until a reply arrives).

Somehow I think this highlights the real difference between the people that like message center and those that don't. Me, I could care less that a message can be read. The only thing important to me is the reply. Until I get the reply, it really doesn't matter to me what my message's relation to the other person is. But people fall in love with social media because of the immediacy, expecting the message being live to mean that the message has been read and, therefore, will soon be answered. But I consider it advantageous that electronic communications are inherently asynchronous.

[+niraD]

I wouldn't know since I've never run into a case where I wanted to communicate with someone with unvalidated e-mail, and I'm hard pressed to imagine why if I did run into that case, I'd do more than shrug.

I've had a couple cases where an unvalidated newbie logged a Find on my cache and I wanted to contact him/her. When all I wanted to say was "welcome to geocaching", I would just shrug it off. But when I wanted to ask them to remove a spoiler or something else inappropriate from their log, my only option was to unilaterally delete/encrypt the log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I wouldn't know since I've never run into a case where I wanted to communicate with someone with unvalidated e-mail, and I'm hard pressed to imagine why if I did run into that case, I'd do more than shrug.

 

 

I've read several instances of newbie cacher that didn't understand how the game is supposed to be played posting a log something like this:

 

"Found your cash. I will try to find some place to hide it next weekend."

 

Would you still shrug if you got a log on one of your caches ike that from someone with an unvalidated email address?

[+cerberus1]

I've had a couple cases where an unvalidated newbie logged a Find on my cache and I wanted to contact him/her. When all I wanted to say was "welcome to geocaching", I would just shrug it off. But when I wanted to ask them to remove a spoiler or something else inappropriate from their log, my only option was to unilaterally delete/encrypt the log.

We just delete anymore, as we've yet to have one of these "never" people respond to email on double posts, spoilers, etc.

 

Curious though...Now that this message center is here, supposedly to finally contact the people we couldn't before, do they get a message center note when a log's deleted, or does it simply slip by them again in email?

If still email, then this message center thing serves no purpose for us...

[+cerberus1]

 

I wouldn't know since I've never run into a case where I wanted to communicate with someone with unvalidated e-mail, and I'm hard pressed to imagine why if I did run into that case, I'd do more than shrug.

 

 

I've read several instances of newbie cacher that didn't understand how the game is supposed to be played posting a log something like this:

 

"Found your cash. I will try to find some place to hide it next weekend."

 

Would you still shrug if you got a log on one of your caches ike that from someone with an unvalidated email address?

+1

More common than some think.

Ours were ammo cans. Happened twice.

"I thought that's how the game's played!"

I finally archived it.

[Pup Patrol]

I sort of like the Message Center. But I am baffled by it.

 

1.) If someone isn't visiting the website, using their phone only for logging, how can they see that the have a message in the MC?

 

2.) Can the MC send an email to notify you that you have a message when you don't have a validated email address on your profile?

 

3.) If you can block users from contacting you on the MC, and they don't know that they've been blocked, what's the point? If they are sending answers to log your Earthcache, and they are blocked, how are they supposed to know if they should log online or not?

 

It does seems to me that the MC is good for chatting, but not that good for geocaching communications.

 

Which makes it pointless, no?

 

Why not force validation of email addresses? No validated email address, no logs, no "found it" allowed.

 

What other website allows non-validated members to play?

 

B.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+on4bam]

Why not force validation of email addresses? No validated email address, no logs, no "found it" allowed.

 

What other website allows non-validated members to play?

 

If that would have been done there would have been no need to put all this effort into the MC.

[+niraD]

1.) If someone isn't visiting the website, using their phone only for logging, how can they see that the have a message in the MC?

If they use Groundspeak's free app, then they may see the notification of a message in the app.

[+NeverSummer]

It's clearer and clearer to me that I won't be wanting to the message center. If I get a message through the MC I'm going to respond via e-mail ... if I choose to reply. It's simple. I get an e-mail, I choose to reply, I get a response and the back and forth continues on that one topic until it has run it's course. Next time? New thread, not hashed up by the first one. Just imagine, two folks could communicate on two different topics in overlapping times and they wouldn't be mixed together. E-mail sounds better to me.

I have been getting more summer visits to my Earthcaches. 95% of the answers sent to me have now come from the "Message Center". To reply I email the user; I don't reply using the "Message Center".

 

The problem I'm having is that there is no obvious link to the user's profile from the MC. There is one, but you have to know to click the profile picture of the user instead of their username at the top. Counter intuitive, if I might say so myself.

 

So this makes me wonder...is there a link to profiles generated within the Intro App? I use the paid App, so I have no idea how it works in the App format. (Speaking of, one of my peeves about the Apps is that there is no way to link to externally view a player profile, including your own, from with the phone applications.) There really, really should be a link to view profiles...it's how I prefer to contact people, and also helps me with context when someone asks questions about my hides or otherwise.

 

Being able to "hide" a conversation is nice, but I'd rather be able to view things in a related thread. If there is a general conversation, keep that in one spot. If there is a communication about an Earthcache, I want that in in its own spot. I don't like the "text message" jumble of discussion...and the fact that I can't search it like I can from my personal email account.

 

So, I continue to reply to users via email. If they choose not to use email to communicate, I can't promise that they'll get the answers they want, or that they'll even see when I might delete a photo or log when answers to my Earthcaches are incorrect, etc.

[+NeverSummer]

This all makes me think....

 

Why doesn't the Message Center notification within the Intro (free) App simply open the browser to Geocaching.com, and then ask for the user to log in? That way they would HAVE to validate their email address to get their messages, which would also help with a zillion other issues we have seen come up with unvalidated new users.

[+dprovan]

But when I wanted to ask them to remove a spoiler or something else inappropriate from their log, my only option was to unilaterally delete/encrypt the log.

That's a big shrug. If they haven't validated their e-mail, why would you be the least concerned about deleting their log? I wouldn't just delete it, I'd delete it gleefully.

 

I've read several instances of newbie cacher that didn't understand how the game is supposed to be played posting a log something like this:

 

"Found your cash. I will try to find some place to hide it next weekend."

 

Would you still shrug if you got a log on one of your caches ike that from someone with an unvalidated email address?

The unvalidated e-mail doesn't seem that important to me for this case. It's no different than a muggle stealing the cache, since I can't contact a muggle, either.

[knowschad]

But when I wanted to ask them to remove a spoiler or something else inappropriate from their log, my only option was to unilaterally delete/encrypt the log.

That's a big shrug. If they haven't validated their e-mail, why would you be the least concerned about deleting their log? I wouldn't just delete it, I'd delete it gleefully.

 

I've read several instances of newbie cacher that didn't understand how the game is supposed to be played posting a log something like this:

 

"Found your cash. I will try to find some place to hide it next weekend."

 

Would you still shrug if you got a log on one of your caches ike that from someone with an unvalidated email address?

The unvalidated e-mail doesn't seem that important to me for this case. It's no different than a muggle stealing the cache, since I can't contact a muggle, either.

 

Except that you never have expected to be able to contact a muggle. You should, however, expect to be able to contact a fellow geocacher. That is the difference.

[+kunarion]

One way the MC really shines (aside from being a thrill for the SMS-chat crowd), is it's pretty much possible to communicate with someone who otherwise can't be contacted by email (or if you can't),...

I'm still having a hard time imagining a cacher that doesn't validate the e-mail but then turns around and religiously reads messages. Has that actually worked for anyone?

 

I wouldn't know since I've never run into a case where I wanted to communicate with someone with unvalidated e-mail, and I'm hard pressed to imagine why if I did run into that case, I'd do more than shrug.

I write to provide a hint, or explain a caching issue. You shrug. They're simply different approaches.

 

"Validating Email" I how a web site adds a little roadblock against spambots (GS also states this clearly on the "validate your email" page). It in no way guarantees communication. The App user is... using the App. The MC is a way to communicate with the people who don't visit the web site. It is true that Geocaching is not just an App, but GS's current business model allows someone to load the App and go, and that means no additional sign-up requirements. There are tons of sites that I've signed up with, providing personal info, then immediately regretting it when the service turns out to not meet my needs (facebook, anyone? ). GS decided not to go that route for some reason.

 

If you truly require validation, these App users have "validated" in many ways already. They have several validated accounts, including their "data plan" with Visa account attached. They are almost certainly not spambots. They are humans and validated. Therefore email validation is not necessary for the App. Validation (or not) is a decision of a business, not for the customers of that business. And it even then it doesn't mean you can communicate with the other customers. Look at the replies when I bring up that point -- they always slam me with "what if the App user simply ignores MC messages!". The exact same argument applies to a "validated" user.

 

If the majority of Trial App users are ruining Groundspeak's business plan, they don't need to "Validate". They can merely cease supporting the Apps.

 

If "Validating" is the magic pill to fixing everything (as I've said, it isn't, and I've explained why not, every way I can, with people pretending they don't get it), GS could shut off the account as fast as it's created, upon no "Validation". But also when "Validated" users pronounce they will "just shrug" -- that they shall ignore communication -- then whatever fixes the App users, fix the shruggles while you're at it .

Edited July 15, 2015 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

1.) If someone isn't visiting the website, using their phone only for logging, how can they see that the have a message in the MC?

If they use Groundspeak's free app, then they may see the notification of a message in the app.

This is the most valuable part of the Message Center: It fills the gap where it was previously not possible to contact an App user. It's a little text chat service for use between smartphones. The trick is how to also connect it to people who use the site instead. Nobody knows.

[+dprovan]

Except that you never have expected to be able to contact a muggle. You should, however, expect to be able to contact a fellow geocacher. That is the difference.

I don't understand. I don't expect to contact a cacher with an unvalidated e-mail, either. I don't see that the cacher having an identity makes much difference.

 

I write to provide a hint, or explain a caching issue. You shrug. They're simply different approaches.

Why do you care if you can't send a hint to someone that doesn't want to get a hint?

[knowschad]

Except that you never have expected to be able to contact a muggle. You should, however, expect to be able to contact a fellow geocacher. That is the difference.

I don't understand. I don't expect to contact a cacher with an unvalidated e-mail, either. I don't see that the cacher having an identity makes much difference.

Apparently you don't understand. I was responding to your statement:

The unvalidated e-mail doesn't seem that important to me for this case. It's no different than a muggle stealing the cache, since I can't contact a muggle, either.

 

It IS different than a muggle stealing a cache. Or, at least, it should be. It used to be. We all had validated emails. You couldn't contact a muggle that had stolen your cache, of course. You can't expect to. But you could contact a newbie geocacher that ran off with your cache, not understanding the game. He wasn't a muggle... he was a player. And being a player, he had a valid email address. That is the difference that you say doesn't exist.

 

[+dprovan]

It IS different than a muggle stealing a cache. Or, at least, it should be.

It's no different because you can't contact the geocacher or the muggle. Even if e-mail addresses are validated doesn't mean they're going to read their e-mail, anyway. The only difference is you have an ID for the geocacher, but I fail to see why that actually matters, since what's important is being unable to talk to them.

 

I'm not arguing against validating e-mail. I don't understand why they don't validate e-mails since it makes so much sense for many reasons. I'm just arguing that unvalidated e-mails does not make much of a case for the message center.

[+K13]

I've come to believe that the Message Center is to placate the INSTANT ans ALWAYS IN CONTACT generation. Some people have come to believe that their phone app MUST allow them to have immediate contact with other players of the game.

 

What floors me is that there has been ZERO apparent attempt to add the Message Center to the paid app, or any other app. It seems to be an Instant Message-type sub-app for the Intro App, which has been given an overlay on all the website. It's too bad they didn't integrate these features into the email system, already in place. And it is really bad that the new Message Center link has replaced the "Email this User" link on the Cache Page. The Cache Page which is seen by those who use the website and isn't seen by the apps. SMH.

[knowschad]

It IS different than a muggle stealing a cache. Or, at least, it should be.

It's no different because you can't contact the geocacher or the muggle. Even if e-mail addresses are validated doesn't mean they're going to read their e-mail, anyway. The only difference is you have an ID for the geocacher, but I fail to see why that actually matters, since what's important is being unable to talk to them.

 

I'm not arguing against validating e-mail. I don't understand why they don't validate e-mails since it makes so much sense for many reasons. I'm just arguing that unvalidated e-mails does not make much of a case for the message center.

 

Geeze, do I have to spell it out for you? Of C.O.U.R.S.E. its no different... today. It S.H.O.U.L.D. be different. It U.S.E.D. to be different.

 

There are at least a couple of dozen APIs online that can be used to validate an email address from within an app, not to mention that I'm sure Groundspeak devs are more than capable of doing it themselves. Before you enable the app, you prompt for an email address. You then send an email to that address containing a link to the validation address, telling them to click on that link. The validation site receives it and sets a flag in the database for that user. It ain't exactly rocket surgery. I sure would like to hear from the devs why it is so difficult.

[+GeoBain]

I've come to understand that no matter what you do, people are gonna be upset.

 

If I were Groundspeak, I would shut down the forums and just proceed as I saw fit. Correct as I saw fit. But trying to appease everyone is a pipe dream.

[+Team Microdot]

I've come to understand that no matter what you do, people are gonna be upset.

 

If I were Groundspeak, I would shut down the forums and just proceed as I saw fit. Correct as I saw fit. But trying to appease everyone is a pipe dream.

 

Reading this post, I have this picture of Groundspeak with their fingers in their ears, eyes closed, shouting La, La, La, La, La, La, La, La, La, La in a bid to shut out ideas, opinions and viewpoints external to their own.

 

Thankfully I think Groundspeak are a bit more adult than that.

[+redsox_mark]

I don't have strong feelings about Message Center either way. I'm finding that most people are using it now when they contact me. And if they do, I reply using it. It works OK for me.

 

When I am initiating the contact; I still tend to use email. But the other day I initiated a conversation via MC. I didn't get a response though.

[+narcissa]

I've come to understand that no matter what you do, people are gonna be upset.

 

If I were Groundspeak, I would shut down the forums and just proceed as I saw fit. Correct as I saw fit. But trying to appease everyone is a pipe dream.

 

Why shut down the forum? Then all us crackpots would just email them directly. The forum is a relief valve.

[knowschad]

I've come to understand that no matter what you do, people are gonna be upset.

 

If I were Groundspeak, I would shut down the forums and just proceed as I saw fit. Correct as I saw fit. But trying to appease everyone is a pipe dream.

 

Some people here have logical reasons for complaining. This isn't all just a bunch of random whining.

[+cerberus1]

I've come to understand that no matter what you do, people are gonna be upset.

 

If I were Groundspeak, I would shut down the forums and just proceed as I saw fit. Correct as I saw fit. But trying to appease everyone is a pipe dream.

 

Some people here have logical reasons for complaining. This isn't all just a bunch of random whining.

+1

I'd think the helpful info folks receive in Getting Started and How Do I, along with issues resolved elsewhere without a Lackey having to chime in (taking time away from business needs) probably make up for the few threads that get heated.

I'd also bet that a lot of technical issues/insights/fixes, and maybe even marketing ideas can be gleaned just in conversations here.

[+kunarion]

I've come to believe that the Message Center is to placate the INSTANT ans ALWAYS IN CONTACT generation.

I think so, too. I'm not so sure it need to be reinvented. There are existing full-featured SMS systems.

 

What floors me is that there has been ZERO apparent attempt to add the Message Center to the paid app, or any other app.

There are hints around here that the “Free App” will become “The App”. Until then, open both the “Intro” and Paid, and you get the Message Center. So there's a slight inconvenience for now, in order to use the slightly inconvenient Message Center . Use it mainly to help Intro App Users (the word help being key) and PM or better yet, actual email for anyone else. If their email is working.

 

But more that one “MC” per device would become a problem. People would be asking which one to shut off. I also thought the MC could be its own separate App, and let the phone open whatever App you use, from within it.

 

If the sender has set their Profile to publicly display their email address, can you reply via email directly from the emailed MC notification? I haven't gotten a wide enough variety of MC notifications to know. If so switching from MC to actual email can be seamless. It requires a special Profile setting, but if the plan is to be able to contact everyone, all avenues of communication must be open.

 

If or when an Intro App user decides to join the web site, they may switch to "PM" (but let's not confuse PM with "email", PM is a GS server to email system with tons of problems) like everybody else.

 

For those who are still bringing up the "Verified" thing, I'll point out yet again that someone just testing the App may not want to reveal a "Verified" email address to a company they haven't decided to use, and I don't blame them. "Verified" is to prove the web user is a human, which App users have in fact proven several ways ($60/mo data plan, anyone?). They've revealed plenty by just having a phone. People using the Intro App don't need email, we contact them via the MC. If one needs everyone "Verified", take that up with TPTB. Convince them about the periodic "re-verified" plan or whatever, because it's a much bigger issue on the web site than it ever was in the App, with many who cannot be contacted who never used the App, plus the web site has "Verified" non-human Spambots to this day. "Verified" is not about the App. I've stated this until I'm blue in the nose yet somehow it never sinks in.

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

Geeze, do I have to spell it out for you? Of C.O.U.R.S.E. its no different... today. It S.H.O.U.L.D. be different. It U.S.E.D. to be different.

No, honestly, it never was any different and it never will be different. Yes, one little thing would prevent people from providing a completely bogus e-mail address, but that just means they have create a free e-mail address, validate it, then delete it.