2

Currently for SE2 sites, when the share button is clicked, we get

  • A shortened link for copying-and-pasting
  • Three buttons to share via Google+, Facebook, and Twitter

For unanswered questions there is apparently a fourth option: that is a mailto: link which pre-populates the subject line and content box of the e-mail.

Feature request: make a "e-mail" button show up also when the share button is pressed, whose link is exactly the same as the e-mail link that appears for unanswered questions.


Notes:

  1. See this post for a description of the current behaviour.
  2. I don't particularly care for this function, but it may meet some demand; and it seems strange that the e-mail functionality is built for unanswered questions and not others.
2

I think the solution here should be to remove the mailto: link from the notice below unanswered questions. The point of these options is to get the link out to as many people as possible and using e-mail seems to be an inefficient way of doing that. Posting to Facebook, Twitter and Google+ makes the link public (to a degree depending on your privacy settings of course), whereas an e-mail is private only going to the recipients you explicitly choose.

I can't see that benefit of adding the link to the sharing options outweighs the cost of making the change. It's far easier just to copy the "share" link and paste into an e-mail yourself if that's really the way you want to share the post.

  • 2
    "The point of these options is to get the link out to as many people as possible and using e-mail seems to be an inefficient way of doing that" -- I wouldn't be so sure. – Shoe Jun 13 '14 at 11:36
  • @Jefffrey - it's targeted - unlike the other methods, but less visible (unless you have many more e-mail contacts than you do Facebook friends!). – ChrisF Jun 13 '14 at 11:38
  • Which is possible. Also you can send email to multiple people at the same time. I'm just saying that it doesn't hurt to have that option. – Shoe Jun 13 '14 at 11:39
  • @Jefffrey - I know that - I was more referring to the fact that posting links to Facebook, Twitter & Google+ is public rather than private. – ChrisF Jun 13 '14 at 11:40
  • 3
    ... which is why they are not always appropriate. Taking the example from math.SE: having found an interesting problem I can't solve, do I want to drop a link to it into my family / friends news feeds? Vast majority won't know what the thing is about, the rest won't know how to solve it anyway. But I may happen to know a person with an expertise and interest in the particular area, and email him/her. My point is, making public sharing the only option may lead to less publicity, not more. – user259867 Jul 5 '14 at 3:16
  • Consider a mailing list of interest group. They may not have FB/G+/Twitter, but they have a common address for email. Although I agree someone may argue "then let them create the interest group on any of those social media sites", my point is there are people who still using mailing list. – Meta Andrew T. Aug 4 '14 at 8:54

You must log in to answer this question.

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