-6

The system only allows a comment to have only one @name in it. Unfortunately if this is a meta discussion about how notifications work, of the discussion about not deleting @postowner from comments, then you get an error message saying only one user can be notified.

Since it is common to use @postowner in these comments, please make a special case exemption for that specific literal use.

Addendum: to be clear I am talking about the literal string "@postowner" not a @ directed AT the postowner

Improve this question
7
  • See also Don't block comments with two @alerts if one of them is @postowner (possible duplicate).
    – Hendrik Vogt
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 6:21
  • @Hendrik In a way, I suppose. I am not talking about a figurative "@postowner" though. I am talking about the literal string "@postowner" when talking about that literal as in this comment right here.
    – JockM
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 6:44
  • 1
    @‍JockM: Hmm, then you'd also have to allow @lert, @all, @reply and stuff like that. As I wrote in a comment to my feature-request, it would be nice if just all invalid @lerts were allowed.
    – Hendrik Vogt
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 6:50
  • 2
    Regarding your edits: What? No one uses the literal string @postowner. That defeats the entire point. Obviously you're talking to the post owner if you don't address someone else specifically. And if you're going to address people, at least use their user names...
    – Cody Gray
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 14:58
  • @cody yes people talk about the literal string @postowner in comments, it has been done a lot in the last couple of weeks in the discussions about the automatic removal of it. People are using it to talk about @ comments, not some generic reference to the postowner
    – JockM
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 15:37
  • Oh, I see. Well then there's a simple solution to that: stop talking about @ comments. I'm quite tired of that discussion, anyway. There's no real-world use case for @postowner, and a [feature-request] so that we can have more meta discussions/rants about something that isn't likely to change is the definition of pointless.
    – Cody Gray
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 15:39
  • 2
    @cody this is meta, a place where people will talk about all kinds of features of the system. So there would be no use for this on SO itself, but on meta, yes there is. Though I am sorry if talking about this bothers you
    – JockM
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 15:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

There already is such a special case exemption: put it in a @codeblock

Improve this answer
10
  • @Hendrik: how common is putting "@postowner" into your comment?
    – Shog9
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 7:17
  • @Shog9: In the past days it's very common :-) Please note my 2nd comment to the OP, I'm thinking also of other @lerts.
    – Hendrik Vogt
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 7:31
  • 4
    @Jeff Is there any way I as a end user could have discovered that?
    – JockM
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 13:45
  • @Jeff perhaps the error message telling me I can't have more than one @name could mention this
    – JockM
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 14:48
  • @JockM: Obviously the preference is that you don't use the workaround; including it in the error message removes it from "workaround" status and turns it into "feature" status.
    – Cody Gray
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 15:01
  • @cody and I am fine with that. I don't think Jeff said it was a workaround but a "special case exemption" in which case it is the appropriate way to do that. So educating the user would be a good thing
    – JockM
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 15:09
  • Oh my, what I wrote in my 1st comment was plain wrong: There's no exemption for links; my first comment to the OP just went through because @postowner is followed by an ] from the inline link syntax. @Jeff: Why is there no exemption for this? I'm more and more annoyed at that blocking feature (is this on purpose, for reducing the number of comments?); for a link I don't need codeblocks.
    – Hendrik Vogt
    Commented Jul 23, 2011 at 7:28
  • @hendrik everything you're describing seems like obscure edge conditions to me. Can you perhaps edit your other request to show more real world examples of where this is an issue in practice rather than in abstract theory?
    – Jeff Atwood
    Commented Jul 23, 2011 at 20:45
  • @Jeff: I've added a few examples to my other request.
    – Hendrik Vogt
    Commented Jul 24, 2011 at 13:25
  • @Jeff I ask again, short of searching for this post, or trying things at random, how would a user know about this exemption. Wouldn't it just be clearer for everyone to just allow more than one @ in a comment (but only notify the first), or make the exemption I suggest?
    – JockM
    Commented Jul 30, 2011 at 19:17

You must log in to answer this question.

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