Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
yxza

Cleaning up Message Center

Recommended Posts

Hello. I really think the new Message Center is great, it eases communication with fellow cachers.
There's only one thing that irritates me. Why can't I delete old conversions that isn't interesting anymore?
The number of conversations keep growing, especially if you have a virtual e.g. that requires that cachers send

you some piece of evidence to show they really visited the place in question.

Or could it be that the above already is possible and I have missed something. Please enlighten me in that case.

Share this post


Link to post

There are 3 things you can do with the messages - Hide, Block or View Profile. It looks as if you cannot delete the old messages that you have received.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, speakers-corner said:

There are 3 things you can do with the messages - Hide, Block or View Profile. It looks as if you cannot delete the old messages that you have received.

Exactly my point.

Share this post


Link to post

Shame you can't create Discord style groups as far as I'm aware so that local cachers could all discuss together. We have a local Facebook group but I don't use Facebook for anything else so it's annoying to need a membership just for that.

 

Hey... it could be a PMO feature. That could get GS interested ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Personally to me it doesn't really make any sense at the moment because it's presented as an "instant message" style feature but is still tied in with emails, which lend themselves to a longer format.

 

Plus on the website we still have the option to directly email OR message someone.

 

At which point if you message someone, they may well be emailing you back anyway.

 

So either have instant messages with group converastions AND emails, OR just have one messaging system that can be used via the app or by email. That would also make it accessible to third party developers who, as I understand, don't have access to the messages shown in the GC official app through the API.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, yxza said:

There's only one thing that irritates me.

One of the things that irritates me about the MC is that it assumes that every conversation I have with someone is part of a single conversation. There is no way to distinguish the conversation I had with them about one cache, vs the conversation about another cache, vs the conversation about an event, vs the conversation about a Souvenir, vs anything else.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, yxza said:

Hello. I really think the new Message Center is great, it eases communication with fellow cachers.
There's only one thing that irritates me. Why can't I delete old conversions that isn't interesting anymore?
The number of conversations keep growing, especially if you have a virtual e.g. that requires that cachers send you some piece of evidence to show they really visited the place in question.

 

Agreed.  A question from another, and my response simply  "yes"  isn't something that should be there forever.    

We have "Please note: I use email only. Thanks." in bold as the first line on our public profile because of this silliness.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Don't consider it a literal "conversation".  Facebook is the same. It's just a chat window with a history of messages between specific people. That's all..

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Don't consider it a literal "conversation".  Facebook is the same. It's just a chat window with a history of messages between specific people. That's all..


True, though usually closer to a conversation than email.  I asked someone a question via email the other day, and got three separate replies, each adding a little extra information - as if they kept hitting send too early.  In the MC this would have all been in one place.  I didn’t know which of their emails to reply back to!

 

I agree improvements could be made to allow better organisation (and maybe deletion), though I have to say, when I hit ‘Message the owner’ on a name that I don’t recognise, it’s nice to be reminded that I’ve already had a conversation with them.

 

I can see how owners of many and/or popular Earthcaches and Vituals might need more help.  Tagging of the GC Code could be a neat idea.

 

I’m not convinced allowing group chats is a good idea though.  Do we really want to turn the MC into a social media hub?

 

53 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We have "Please note: I use email only. Thanks." in bold as the first line on our public profile because of this silliness.


I typically use the ‘Message the owner’ links on the cache pages, or less often the links from the App.  Afraid I’d be unlikely to see your warning.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, IceColdUK said:

I can see how owners of many and/or popular Earthcaches and Vituals might need more help.  Tagging of the GC Code could be a neat idea.

 

This is actually done if you use the "Message the owner" link directly from the listing's web page.

 

1 minute ago, IceColdUK said:
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

We have "Please note: I use email only. Thanks." in bold as the first line on our public profile because of this silliness.


I typically use the ‘Message the owner’ links on the cache pages, or less often the links from the App.  Afraid I’d be unlikely to see your warning.

 

I might use email if someone suggested that because it makes no difference as the sender, really, but I also know that a message sent in the MC shoots off an email too.  And if someone is against the MC merely on principle, it kind of colours my opinion of how communication will go :P

 

(for example, if someone wants email communication only for earthcache answers, but someone sends earthcache answers by MC, I don't believe if a CO deletes the user's Find log claiming they didn't receive answers that it's a defensible argument; the user sent the answers in a communication still readily available, the CO is just choosing not to look at them because they don't like where it exists; so, probably not going to hold up if it goes to appeals)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

I can see how owners of many and/or popular Earthcaches and Vituals might need more help.  Tagging of the GC Code could be a neat idea.

 

This is actually done if you use the "Message the owner" link directly from the listing's web page.


The GC Code and cache title are put into the message, but there’s nothing to stop you deleting them.  If the GC Code were to be recorded (internally) against the message, then cache owners could be given the option to filter messages for a particular cache.  Might be useful...

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

The GC Code and cache title are put into the message, but there’s nothing to stop you deleting them.  If the GC Code were to be recorded (internally) against the message, then cache owners could be given the option to filter messages for a particular cache.  Might be useful...

 

But, if the sender intended to delete the cache reference (not sure why if it's regarding that cache, but still), why should the system covertly reverse that? Especially if the CO can just ask "which cache is this in reference to?"  It comes to who's intent is more important :) The recipient for organization, or the sender for control of the content?

 

I think it's reasonable to auto-populate a message with the listing the request has come from, and give the sender the option to remove it if they want.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

But, if the sender intended to delete the cache reference (not sure why if it's regarding that cache, but still), why should the system covertly reverse that? Especially if the CO can just ask "which cache is this in reference to?"  It comes to who's intent is more important :) The recipient for organization, or the sender for control of the content?

 

I think it's reasonable to auto-populate a message with the listing the request has come from, and give the sender the option to remove it if they want.


It doesn’t need to be anything covert - stick the GC Code at the top with the CO’s name.  If your message is not related to the cache, you can use the link from the CO’s profile instead.  (Even give an option to remove the GC Code if you like.)

 

With this, the CO could be given the option to filter their messages to show those for a specific cache, non-cache specific messages, or all messages.

 

I guess a simple text search filter would achieve much of the same.  Without receiving hundreds of messages myself, this is pure speculation as to what might help those that do...

Share this post


Link to post

I think leaving organizational methods for individual owners up to the owners is better. It would be redundant to provide reference text for the sender (which can be deleted) and reference text for the receiver that the sender can do nothing about, especially if a message may not be related to that listing at all - one of any number of reasons the sender may wish to remove that auto-populated text.

If I send a message about a cache, I'll make sure that's clear in my text. If I get a message from someone who doesn't make any connection, I'll ask, and then deal with it accordingly. As a CO I don't want the system to assume the sender must be sending me info about a specific listing, I'll assume the sender wants me to know which if that is in deed the case.  As a sender, I've used the 'message owner' link from a listing before to send a message unrelated to it, but for the owner, and have thus removed the auto-text. If an owner was relying on some forced-reference text for their own auto-organization, my message would be mis-characterized.

It wouldn't be a reliable piece of information to auto-include with sent messages if removing the ability for it to be managed by the sender. Not everything needs to be automated :P

Share this post


Link to post

I actually don't mind the archival nature of it - several times now I've referred back to stuff someone had sent me a couple of years back which was useful when someone else asked for it..... like missing multi WPs etc - I would like to be able to sort them though - allocate to folders etc....

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...