8

If me and somebody else are in comment and they get along and it says to create a chat, and so I click that link and it makes a comment from me saying "Let us continue this discussion in chat.", and I can type in there, but I can't do @ his name.

And I see that that link is saying "let us continue" doesn't have @ and his name either. Is that person going to get pinged? About the comment saying "let us continue.." or with my message in the chat?

Because if not, then I should probably make another comment afterwards saying "^^^" pointing to that chat link.

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    I got a notification when someone did this to me earlier.
    – Catija
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 3:57
  • @Catija can you screenshot the comment "let's start this conversation in chat" and screenshot its associated notification? and I would then accept it as an answer
    – barlop
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 8:57
  • @barlop Here is my chat link from Marc Gravell and I have a notification of it in my inbox.
    – HackerKarma
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 9:17
  • @HackerKarma I see the chat link. Can you paste a screenshot of the notification on imgur, and link to it? (So I can see what the notification looks like). I will accept an answer with that.
    – barlop
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 9:24
  • @barlop added in my answer below
    – HackerKarma
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 9:31

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Here is a chat link that I received from Marc Gravell ♦ moderator on the post "Why can't this picture be uploaded from URL?":

Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Marc Gravell ♦ Aug 3 at 15:38

And here is the screenshot of the corresponding inbox notification

enter image description here

Improve this answer
9
  • For clarity: You were not the only other participant in the comments at that point, nor the post owner.
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 18:22
  • @NathanTuggy Post owner is "Ooker" (you can see it on post) and Marc Gravell sent me the chat request and upon clicking I was the only one chatting with him
    – HackerKarma
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 18:27
  • Yeah, but I was referring to the fact that there's no other way you would have been notified normally.
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 18:36
  • @NathanTuggy All I know that I got an inbox notification (as shown in the screenshot) and tme comment message was there. I guess Marc Gravell would be the best person to ask.
    – HackerKarma
    Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 18:55
  • @NathanTuggy Not sure what you mean, since obviously no one person is the only participant in comments that spawn a chat, it takes two for that to happen. And why do you state as fact that there's no toher way he would've been notified normally.. what do you mean by normally and how does that differ from this case. The fact that he's not the owner and sitll got a chat link just bolsters his case more.
    – barlop
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 6:11
  • @barlop: I said "only other". I said that because there are three ways normally for a comment to notify you: a direct ping, it's your post being commented on, or you're the only other participant, along with whoever just commented. I was proving what had previously been implied.
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 6:40
  • @NathanTuggy You wrote "You were not the only other participant in the comments " and you wrote re getting notified "you're the only other participant, along with whoever just commented" What do you mean he is not the only other participant, if you're proving what he had implied, and you're trying to argue that he got notified for being "the only other participant, along with whoever just commented". What is the difference in the meaning of your words in being "the only other participant", vs "the only other participant along with the person that had just commented"?
    – barlop
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 10:07
  • @barlop: There is no difference in the two descriptions, since the second adds a dependent clause to explain what the first already referred to. If I repeat myself in different words, it's to clarify my meaning, since I very seldom contradict myself. The implication being proven is "yes, the other person will get alerted" (directly answering your question in the affirmative), and the only way to prove that is to show that no other known existing code path for notification will cause the observed behavior, and that therefore the chat message must. This is the fundamental diagnostic technique.
    – Nathan Tuggy
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 17:42
  • @NathanTuggy It is impossible4 A to be1 of the "other participant(s)", because if he was they wouldn't be other. And if A had a participant,then no 1 person would b the only participant. So u talking about being not the only other participant is a very odd formulation.But yes I understand the diagnostic procedure / what you're getting at.Bizarre terms tho 'cos if A was alone I suppose he'd still be not the only other participant, because he's not even the "other" participant.n if A had a participant, then he'd still b not the only other participant because he's not the other participant
    – barlop
    Commented Aug 14, 2015 at 18:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .