I checked my Stack Exchange Inbox (drop down list) just now and it mentioned three messages for me. Two were legit - the last was this one on The Tavern which was another Mark.

  • 6
    Let's put it this way: If you're at a party, and someone yells "Hey Mark!", you'd turn around. That's the principle chat replies are modeled after.
    – balpha
    Oct 1 '10 at 10:00
  • @balpha - I'm surprised it is implemented that way but you've made a great analogy - thanks. Oct 1 '10 at 10:36
  • Did somebody call me?
    – Mark C
    Oct 12 '10 at 1:22
  • 1
    @Marc C - you too? This question is becoming a @Mark / @Marc convention... Oct 12 '10 at 7:51

That follows the standard rules of @blah conflicts, I'm afraid. You would also have got a highlight inside chat for that.

That was a reply; if they had just used the explicit reply (rather than adding the @Mark), it would have known who it meant, but that @Mark was ambiguous so all the "Mark*" who had been active in the room were included.

Usually, auto-complete on the name would have given a less ambiguous match... but they are just "Mark".

You'd get the same problem if you'd both been talking in comments on SOFU. I don't propose there is much we can do about it.

  • You'd get the same problem if you'd both been talking in comments - I thought that only the most-recent matched commenter gets notified, or is that wrong?
    – Tim Stone
    Oct 1 '10 at 9:57
  • @Tim - hmmm... it seems you are correct. But I think balpha hits the nail on the head with his comment above. Oct 1 '10 at 10:21
  • @Marc - thanks. So I guess that, if multiple Marcs (with a C) had contributed to this page they'd all get this post in their inbox, right? Oct 1 '10 at 10:37
  • @Marc: Yeah, that makes sense, especially given the more fluid nature of the chat. :) The only counterpoint I might make in this case is that the OP's lack of activity in that room (it seems he has no posts/hasn't been in chat for at least 18 days?) makes him unlikely enough of a candidate that he doesn't need a system-wide notification. At the same time though, it's impossible to know for sure, so I suppose it's a better safe than sorry sort of situation.
    – Tim Stone
    Oct 1 '10 at 10:56
  • @Tim - 18 days? Hmmm... I suspect that should probably indeed rule them out. Let me try to tweak that... Oct 1 '10 at 10:59
  • @Mark - no, time corrected me; in comments it is only the most recent; I'm changing chat to only look at people who've been in the room in the last week - seem like a fair compromise? Oct 1 '10 at 11:12
  • @Marc - sounds great. I don't know if one week is the appropriate time interval - I'll trust you have a better idea of that. Thanks. Oct 1 '10 at 11:31
  • @marc one week seems like an absurdly large window for name mentions. Two days seems more sane to me.. Oct 12 '10 at 9:52
  • @Jeff - will reduce Oct 12 '10 at 11:00
  • @Jeff @Marc - thanks. Oct 12 '10 at 11:38
  • @Marc, if there's only 1 match, are you going to ignore the time window? Thinking about chats that have less activity. ALso, what if the 2 days eliminates all matches? Oct 12 '10 at 12:35
  • I think it is way too sensitive. I have never really participated in the chat yet. I poke the rooms every once in a while just to see what it's all about. I haven't viewed the meta chat rooms for a while now (over a week or so) and I received a notification for a message clearly directed to Mr. @Atwood. If reducing the window is not an option, it should at least be only for people who have actually participated within this time. Nov 5 '10 at 6:40
  • @JeffM - I can see exactly 1 instance of this looking at Oct/Nov: this one - but I will investigate. Fortunately, it logs everything... Nov 5 '10 at 6:48
  • @Marc: Ok thanks. I just thought it was odd to get notified for it when I never really participated. Nov 5 '10 at 6:54
  • @JeffM - in this case, since it wasn't an exact match, there is a 2-day limit. You entered that room "2010-11-03 06:57:34.093", that reply was "2010-11-05 05:27:18.807", which is within 2 days. I see you have some matches in September too, but that pre-dates the changes. So in short, since we changed the rules, there has been only 1 false positive, and that from a room that you had visited recently... You might disagree, but to me it sounds like it is working fine...? Nov 5 '10 at 6:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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