Proposal: non-notifying mentions #118

Open
opened 2026-01-07 14:50:33 +00:00 by hj · 14 comments
Owner

Here's an idea - being able to mention user without notifying them while also avoiding cumbersome to/cc/bcc fields:

use @! for mentions, i.e. @!hj@post.ebin.club

supported software/versions will convert it to mention link with class "silent" while unsupported version just leave it as plaintext, avoiding accidental notifications

Here's an idea - being able to mention user without notifying them while also avoiding cumbersome to/cc/bcc fields: use `@!` for mentions, i.e. `@!hj@post.ebin.club` supported software/versions will convert it to mention link with class "silent" while unsupported version just leave it as plaintext, avoiding accidental notifications
Author
Owner

@lambadalambda @feld @lanodan what do you think of this?

@lambadalambda @feld @lanodan what do you think of this?
Owner

Not entirely sure on this one… like what would be the use case? Soft-untagging from a thread maybe?

Also would probably be messy in terms of federation due to normalization comparable to our Transmogrifier, like reminds me of how weird Friendica's CCs can get.

And on the negative social side, I guess it would be as bad as pasting the URL of the account?

Not entirely sure on this one… like what would be the use case? Soft-untagging from a thread maybe? Also would probably be messy in terms of federation due to normalization comparable to our Transmogrifier, like reminds me of how weird Friendica's CCs can get. And on the negative social side, I guess it would be as bad as pasting the URL of the account?
Author
Owner

It would be useful in DMs to not accidentally inviting third party into the thread

It would be useful in DMs to not accidentally inviting third party into the thread
Owner

Ah, pretty different from how I understood it, so mention but doesn't do a CC/BCC?

And could be neat but syntax wise it seems like an easy typo away from making a normal mention (fine for a CC/BCC, nasty for DMs).

Ah, pretty different from how I understood it, so mention but doesn't do a CC/BCC? And could be neat but syntax wise it seems like an easy typo away from making a normal mention (fine for a CC/BCC, nasty for DMs).
Author
Owner

Yes. Proposed syntax is such that if you intended to write a non-mention on unsupported backend (I.e. someone on mastodon trying to copy it) it would not end up mentioning and just end up with plain text

Yes. Proposed syntax is such that if you intended to write a non-mention on unsupported backend (I.e. someone on mastodon trying to copy it) it would not end up mentioning and just end up with plain text

We do have this setting under :instance

safe_dm_mentions: If set to true, only mentions at the beginning of a post will be used to address people in direct messages. This is to prevent accidental mentioning of people when talking about them (e.g. "@friend hey i really don't like @enemy"). Default: false.

We do have this setting under :instance > safe_dm_mentions: If set to true, only mentions at the beginning of a post will be used to address people in direct messages. This is to prevent accidental mentioning of people when talking about them (e.g. "@friend hey i really don't like @enemy"). Default: false.
Author
Owner

I think this approach is less intuitive and it's hard to learn and easy to forget whether this option is enabled or not, plus not usea-configurable. It also adds confusion to receiving user if they are on instance that doesn't support it or has it disabled.

Overall custom syntax seem less dangerous and more intuitive.

I think this approach is less intuitive and it's hard to learn and easy to forget whether this option is enabled or not, plus not usea-configurable. It also adds confusion to receiving user if they are on instance that doesn't support it or has it disabled. Overall custom syntax seem less dangerous and more intuitive.

I don't think it works to prevent accidental mentions. It's already possible to prevent mentioning a user by simply not adding an @ in front of the name. Similarly, a user would have to explicitly remember the @! syntax, it would do nothing to prevent them from accidentally mentioning someone because they use the same @ syntax they always use.

I don't think it works to prevent accidental mentions. It's already possible to prevent mentioning a user by simply not adding an @ in front of the name. Similarly, a user would have to explicitly remember the @! syntax, it would do nothing to prevent them from accidentally mentioning someone because they use the same @ syntax they always use.
Author
Owner

hmm, i think you're right

I think being able to generate a link to a user without mentioning them or pasting long url would still be beneficial. Over time people might learn how to use it when they see others use it.

Either way, I just think it would nice to have, not a priority. Feel free to dismiss it.

hmm, i think you're right I think being able to generate a link to a user without mentioning them or pasting long url would still be beneficial. Over time people might learn how to use it when they see others use it. Either way, I just think it would nice to have, not a priority. Feel free to dismiss it.

It is possible to achieve that effect by using the to option, see https://docs.pleroma.social/backend/development/API/differences_in_mastoapi_responses/#post-apiv1statuses, although that needs some serious frontend support.

It is possible to achieve that effect by using the `to` option, see https://docs.pleroma.social/backend/development/API/differences_in_mastoapi_responses/#post-apiv1statuses, although that needs some serious frontend support.
Author
Owner

I think having to: field is intrusive in context of micro-blogging, less compatible and confusing for mastodon and other front-end users.

Having custom syntax is less intrusive - just remember new syntax, just like it would be with gropus - just use !banky

As for compatibility, here's a flow for both cases

to: field or safe_dm_mentions

  1. Pleroma user posts a dm with mention that doesn't notify the user
  2. Mastodon user sees it and thinks there was an oops and that user got mentioned OR thinks (or told) it's ok to mention someone mid-post and they wont be notified
  3. oops

@! syntax

  1. Pleroma user posts with @! syntax
  2. Mastodon user sees this syntax, tries to use it, it doesn't get parsed and ends up as plain text, understands that it's not supported on his instance.
  3. extra user doesn't get notified 👍
I think having `to:` field is intrusive in context of micro-blogging, less compatible and confusing for mastodon and other front-end users. Having custom syntax is less intrusive - just remember new syntax, just like it would be with gropus - just use `!banky` As for compatibility, here's a flow for both cases ## `to:` field or `safe_dm_mentions` 1. Pleroma user posts a dm with mention that doesn't notify the user 2. Mastodon user sees it and thinks there was an oops and that user got mentioned OR thinks (or told) it's ok to mention someone mid-post and they wont be notified 3. oops ## `@!` syntax 1. Pleroma user posts with `@!` syntax 2. Mastodon user sees this syntax, tries to use it, it doesn't get parsed and ends up as plain text, understands that it's not supported on his instance. 4. extra user doesn't get notified :thumbsup:
Owner

Or:

@! syntax

  1. Pleroma user posts a dm with @! syntax
  2. Mastodon user sees it, possibly when replying and thinks there was a typo, and so "fixes" the mention
  3. oops
Or: ## `@!` syntax 1. Pleroma user posts a dm with `@!` syntax 2. Mastodon user sees it, possibly when replying and thinks there was a typo, and so "fixes" the mention 3. oops
Author
Owner

Good point.

Good point.
Author
Owner

How hard would it be to implement it? We could run a experiment and if people complain we'll just remove it

How hard would it be to implement it? We could run a experiment and if people complain we'll just remove it
Sign in to join this conversation.
No labels
BE
No milestone
No project
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
pleroma/pleroma-meta#118
No description provided.