Favourites
Most popular topics | Flirtbox Suggestionsopen/close
- IRC chat room... (47)
- Who has seen my profile?... (33)
- Pesky kids!... (31)
- Name and Shame... (30)
- Ditch the ticker!... (27)
- Profile idea?... (26)
- Old Random Profiles... (22)
- Status of sent messages... (20)
- IRC NETWORK... (20)
- A forum for Kent please?... (20)
- Do you need another forum... (19)
- Forum ALBA / Scottish For... (18)
- What I'm looking for... (17)
- mailboxes... (17)
- Religion - Should have th... (17)
- Which colour scheme do yo... (16)
- Forum suggestions........ (14)
- Local Area Forum... (14)
- GENDER SYMBOLS... (14)
- by county... (14)
- % of messages responded t... (12)
- Stop bloody leaving!!... (12)
- Question for Toby... (12)
- SENT MESSAGE BOX... (11)
- flirtbox theme music!... (11)
Latest topics | Flirtbox Suggestionsopen/close
- Previously Banned Members...
- Simple Minds...
- TV...
- add to the sports option...
- Rating thread......
- Version Control...
- 2 things...
- Just the one suggestion r...
- Professions...
- Cheshire Forum...
- "Send message" ...
- Anf female golfers around...
- sorry to sound stupid!...
- Search options...
- Bring the old website bac...
- Youtube...
- html...
- Various...
- terrible...
- I LOVE THE NEW DESIGN...
- Help, struggling with the...
- Site Design...
- new site design..DREADFUL...
- Anonymous ??...
- suggestion for irish site...
Home >> Flirtbox Suggestions >> Status of sent messages
05.08.2006, 10:22 quote
Don't know if someone has suggested this before, but what would be really good to see would be to be able to see whether a message you've sent has been read, deleted or whatever.
That way you're not wondering if your messages have been read, or if people aren't interested etc.
05.08.2006, 14:04 quote
This feature is actually present on certain sites already, usually they request a "receipt" upon reading a message. This sounds similar in design to requesting a read-percentage, and I can see where this is going.
Your idea would only work if the receipt was compulsory, which it couldn't - the option needs to be there that you won't accept a receipt, it's like when you send recorded mail - you may be asked to sign for a package, but you don't have to accept & sign if you don't want to.
It can be used to identify active users for scammers too.
I think you'd find people who sent a message with a receipt would only end up getting their mail read even less - some people don't like the invasion of privacy.
05.08.2006, 20:27 quote
| swissrebel wrote: |
| This feature is actually present on certain sites already, usually they request a "receipt" upon reading a message. This sounds similar in design to requesting a read-percentage, and I can see where this is going.
Your idea would only work if the receipt was compulsory, which it couldn't - the option needs to be there that you won't accept a receipt, it's like when you send recorded mail - you may be asked to sign for a package, but you don't have to accept & sign if you don't want to. It can be used to identify active users for scammers too. I think you'd find people who sent a message with a receipt would only end up getting their mail read even less - some people don't like the invasion of privacy. |
I don't think it'd matter about active users, cause there's already the "last login" thing for that.
What I was suggesting was like a Sent Mail folder (that someone else wanted), and it would show whether the message was sent, read, replied, or deleted.
Some other sites do it that way, and it's pretty useful.
05.08.2006, 20:32 quote
Yep, some sites i've used do show if a message has been read - and they usually ask for a receipt - a little javascript box that pops up when you open the message saying "user X has requested a delivery receipt for this message, do you wish to grant it?"
That way, if they click "no", the message will perpetually be in limbo, on your message list it'll say "awaiting receipt" much like all the ones that haven't been read.
I'm very much against the idea of people knowing who's messages I read and whos profiles I look at. I consider that an invasion of privacy. That's why i'll argue it to the death that there are always "optional" elements to these "spy" features people want on the site.
It works fine as it is, If someone doesn't reply to my message, i'm content to accept they don't want to chat - especially if I see them online.
Common sense is a much more sensible suggestion, plus it'll save Toby from having to add more unnecessary features
05.08.2006, 20:36 quote
| swissrebel wrote: |
| Yep, some sites i've used do show if a message has been read - and they usually ask for a receipt - a little javascript box that pops up when you open the message saying "user X has requested a delivery receipt for this message, do you wish to grant it?"
That way, if they click "no", the message will perpetually be in limbo, on your message list it'll say "awaiting receipt" much like all the ones that haven't been read. I'm very much against the idea of people knowing who's messages I read and whos profiles I look at. I consider that an invasion of privacy. That's why i'll argue it to the death that there are always "optional" elements to these "spy" features people want on the site. It works fine as it is, If someone doesn't reply to my message, i'm content to accept they don't want to chat - especially if I see them online. Common sense is a much more sensible suggestion, plus it'll save Toby from having to add more unnecessary features ![]() |
and all i can say is...i agree..
05.08.2006, 21:54 quote
| swissrebel wrote: |
| Yep, some sites i've used do show if a message has been read - and they usually ask for a receipt - a little javascript box that pops up when you open the message saying "user X has requested a delivery receipt for this message, do you wish to grant it?"
That way, if they click "no", the message will perpetually be in limbo, on your message list it'll say "awaiting receipt" much like all the ones that haven't been read. I'm very much against the idea of people knowing who's messages I read and whos profiles I look at. I consider that an invasion of privacy. That's why i'll argue it to the death that there are always "optional" elements to these "spy" features people want on the site. It works fine as it is, If someone doesn't reply to my message, i'm content to accept they don't want to chat - especially if I see them online. Common sense is a much more sensible suggestion, plus it'll save Toby from having to add more unnecessary features ![]() |
Well I can only speak for the two other sites I've been on, which just show a list, and don't have any pop-ups or asking if you wish to send a reciept, it's just marked as read when they read it, on your list of sent messages.
I don't see it's an invasion of other people's privacy to know if they've read/deleted a message you've sent them. Almost every girl who's not interested won't bother to reply with why, so you're just in limbo wondering whether they've read it, are maybe thinking about replying later, or just deleted it.
Maybe I'm just being too nice by only messaging a few girls at once and seeing if I get a reply. Maybe I should just be messaging every girl I see and playing the percentages!
05.08.2006, 22:05 quote
| UnusualEd wrote: |
| I don't see it's an invasion of other people's privacy to know if they've read/deleted a message you've sent them. Almost every girl who's not interested won't bother to reply with why, so you're just in limbo wondering whether they've read it, are maybe thinking about replying later, or just deleted it.
Maybe I'm just being too nice by only messaging a few girls at once and seeing if I get a reply. Maybe I should just be messaging every girl I see and playing the percentages! |
You don't get to see if regular mail gets read or thrown away, I think you've gotta realise it is an invasion of privacy as it's showing someone's actions on the site.
And this is how it works: You message all the girls you like if you want to try and get a message from one, some or all of them. If you want quantity of mail, then just message everyone.
I'm stubborn on this subject - I don't want people knowing who's messages I read, who's I reply to etc. It's my right to choose who I reply to, and I don't want other people to know if i'm doing it - that's the comfort of online dating - you don't need to tell anyone anything, or justify or reveal anything you don't want to.
Maybe you could request people put "I do/do not reply to messages" in their profile. That wouldn't be a bad idea, because people would get to choose that then. If they lie, then you get a good idea of what that person's like
13.08.2006, 13:52 quote
Seeing as i'm a bit geeky, i discovered a "hack" that already shows if your message was read...
<secret>
13.08.2006, 14:33 quote
The sent messages already exists, but it is not visible yet as I have to
make sure spammers will not be able to use this in order to find a way around the spam filter.
13.08.2006, 16:12 quote
Ooops should i have not posted that URL?
To be fair Toby, we both know how to write code and therefore how things work, which is (obviously) how i knew that the sent message status can already be checked. I know spammers can be a major pain in the arse but most of them are relatively intelligent so they too are capable of a workaround.
The only way i can suggest to limit spam is to limit several things such as:
1. number of mails you can send per hour/day.
2. number of *different* users mail is sent to - i.e. you can only contact (say) 20 different people per day.
You could also check for automated mail sending by checking the time between mails. And how about a filter system? If a user sends the exact same mail more than 10 times, they're spamming.
JUst my suggestions...
13.08.2006, 21:06 quote
| YourManForever wrote: |
| Ooops should i have not posted that URL?
To be fair Toby, we both know how to write code and therefore how things work, which is (obviously) how i knew that the sent message status can already be checked. I know spammers can be a major pain in the arse but most of them are relatively intelligent so they too are capable of a workaround. The only way i can suggest to limit spam is to limit several things such as: 1. number of mails you can send per hour/day. 2. number of *different* users mail is sent to - i.e. you can only contact (say) 20 different people per day. You could also check for automated mail sending by checking the time between mails. And how about a filter system? If a user sends the exact same mail more than 10 times, they're spamming. JUst my suggestions... |
Although those 2 suggestions would indeed reduce spam, and they're really actually the best two - they'd also reduce genuine mail drastically.
Are we defining spammers on this site as people who just message lots of people asking if they want to chat? The problem with that definition would have to be that some people just genuinely want to chat to lots of people.
Limiting the number of messages/variety of people is really not worth the hassle. Isn't there already a "report spam" button for people to report, what they think, is bulk-mail?
If X amount of users report a certain user, hey presto - you've got your spammer.
My only problem with that would be that some people wouldn't assume a message is spam if it just said "hi, wanna chat?"
Sigh. Ahh well. It's hardly the biggest problem on the site at the moment.
14.08.2006, 00:19 quote
| swissrebel wrote: |
| Isn't there already a "report spam" button for people to report, what they think, is bulk-mail? |
There IS and to be honest, I did wonder why that wasn't good enough. With regards to limiting the number of mails sent per day there are obviously sensible limits as to how fast a human could send a message. I don't think spamming is a major problem until it becomes automated. When the spam is sent automatically, the app will nearly always setup at some ridiculous speed that is not humanly possible.
Sooo what i'm saying is:
6 mails sent per min = 10sec each. MAYBE humanly possible.
100 mails per min HAS to be automated = spammer
There is happy medium somewhere...
14.08.2006, 09:52 quote
| YourManForever wrote: |
|
Sooo what i'm saying is: 6 mails sent per min = 10sec each. MAYBE humanly possible. 100 mails per min HAS to be automated = spammer There is happy medium somewhere... |
If Toby could find the worst offenders and work out a more accurate average (100 mails would indeed have to be automated, but i'm sure we could cut that right down to 10 - most forums won't let you post more than a handful of messages per minute)
That sounds reasonable. But what's to stop the spammers just adjusting their system to send messages 2 or 3 times a minute?
14.08.2006, 11:41 quote
| swissrebel wrote: |
| But what's to stop the spammers just adjusting their system to send messages 2 or 3 times a minute? |
They will ALWAYS find a workaround. So you will only ever reduce it, not stop it all together.
14.08.2006, 11:43 quote
| YourManForever wrote: | ||
They will ALWAYS find a workaround. So you will only ever reduce it, not stop it all together. |
I think probably just in this case, it won't particularly reduce it - they'll just use a workaround. Seeing as Toby's time is precious, this method will just be a waste of his time.
I'm still unclear on the definition of a spammer in our case - Is this just the lonely guy who sends out a hundred "hi, fancy a chat" messages on his first day on the site to people he likes? Or are we talking commercial spamming?
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




