Chat provides the ability to ignore users. However, it doesn't force everyone else to ignore them. ;) As such, you can still see responses to that user.

It might be nice if "Ignore this user" provided an option to also ignore responses to that user's posts, and potentially all posts with @ignored_user.


Ehhh I do not really like this idea.

I have ignored users before, but when I see others' comments back to them I decide that I might want to take them out of cherem and actually participate in the discussion.

If I see it going nowhere, then I might put them back into my ignored user list.

Other than that I don't think we should penalize ourselves from seeing other people's sometimes insightful responses to the aforementioned ignored user.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I changed the suggestion to make it an optional add-on to the ignore. – wfaulk Feb 27 '12 at 22:03
  • @wfaulk my answer still remains the same. – Naftali aka Neal Feb 27 '12 at 22:03
  • Good thing you linked a definition of that word. – Resorath Feb 27 '12 at 22:06
  • @Resorath I thought so ^_^ – Naftali aka Neal Feb 27 '12 at 22:09
  • @amanaPlanaCAnalPAnaMA fair enough – wfaulk Feb 27 '12 at 22:26
  • 2
    Fully agree. Also worth noting how incredibly easy it would be to forget ignoring someone in the first place. Most people that I know don't stay irritated for very long, and this might lead to people forgetting that others even exist due to someone having a one off bad day. – Tim Post Feb 28 '12 at 5:51

I support this. If you have 3-4 "busy" people on ignore and the chat room is busy, you may as well give up on trying to follow the conversation streams and come back later when there's nobody around.

If I have someone on ignore, I don't really give two hoots what they're talking about or if they're saying something interesting or if someone else has said something interesting in response to them. They're on ignore for a reason.

| improve this answer | |

This is a problem with most chat systems, where you see one sided conversations. Luckily SO cuts down on the confusion with the @username format.

I oppose blocking the messages from a user who is replying to a blocked user, as you may be missing a good message. After all, you're not blocking the replier. What I propose as a compromise is a way to highlight that the replier is replying to a message from a user who you have blocked. One way of doing this might be a red strike through in the @reply. For example:

Resorath: @imajerk I don't think we should revive Hitler and make him our president.

(Except the @name would be red)

| improve this answer | |
  • It's an interesting idea, but the problem I see with it is that you're then effectively highlighting the response, which is almost exactly the opposite of what the mega-ignore option would do. – wfaulk Feb 27 '12 at 22:28
  • 2
    @wfaulk True, ditch the red then, just keep it as a strike through. What I'm hoping for is to allow the brain to filter the messages instead of the software. – Resorath Feb 27 '12 at 22:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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