Suggestion Entering the '@' to reference a PF member from a quote

[Melbourne Guy]

When I quote a PF member comment, and I want to refer to them using the '@' method in my comment, I have to type in their name. It would be helpful if the editor could auto-fill the name from the immediately previous quote.

 

[berkeman]

But when you use "Reply" to quote another user, they are automatically flagged anyway. Why would you add the extra @ tag reference?

 

[anorlunda]

When I quote a PF member comment, and I want to refer to them using the '@' method in my comment, I have to type in their name. It would be helpful if the editor could auto-fill the name from the immediately previous quote.

How are you doing the quote? When I make quotes (such as quoting you above) the quoting system automatically puts in the user name.

If you are using copy/paste instead of the quote system, you're making extra work for yourself.

You can highlight a portion of the post to quote, and a popup appears giving you the option to quote or to reply.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Sorry, I should have included an example, such as this, where you can see that I've explicitly recognised fluidistic in my reply.

 

[anorlunda]

OK, got it. You do have to type at least a portion of the name, but if you pause an autocomplete popup will appear showing the exact spelling and punctuations.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

OK, got it. You do have to type at least a portion of the name, but if you pause an autocomplete popup will appear showing the exact spelling and punctuations.

Yes, but compare PF to LinkedIn, and this is the only feature which is more convenient on LinkedIn where the mere act of typing the '@' triggers an autofill of the most recent commentator's name. It's not a 'die in a ditch' feature, obviously, @anorlunda, but merely put into the pot for consideration.

 

[berkeman]

Sorry, I should have included an example, such as this, where you can see that I've explicitly recognised fluidistic in my reply.

View attachment 314531

But that double-flags them. That is bordering on spamming...

 

[mfb]

But when you use "Reply" to quote another user, they are automatically flagged anyway. Why would you add the extra @ tag reference?

That depends on their https://www.physicsforums.com/account/preferences#alerts. As an example, I don't get alerts for quotes (they are usually in threads I watch, no need to add an alert), but I do get them for @mentions. If someone wants to let me know that they quoted one of my posts in a different thread then this would be a good place to add @mfb.

 

[DaveE]

That is bordering on spamming

Hence the LinkedIn reference...

 

[Melbourne Guy]

But that double-flags them. That is bordering on spamming...

Just seems polite to refer to people by name if you're conversing...unnamed commentator! But if I ignore the wink, and take that you're a Mentor at face value, I'll stop with the '@' mention as it's actually easier.

Hence the LinkedIn reference...

Hmmm...

There's a lot I don't like about LinkedIn, but that's one useful feature. Though taking into account the unnamed commentator's observation, perhaps LinkedIn does that because the user interface is so shoddy? PF is light years ahead of Microsoft's billion dollar baby in that regard

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Just seems polite to refer to people by name if you're conversing...unnamed commentator!

You can write as if you are talking to the person who is physically present with you. For instance, if I am talking to a person named Albert, I will probably not name him in front of him because that is not necessary. I will just use "you", something like, "You know what? …"

 

[Melbourne Guy]

You can write as if you are talking to the person who is physically present with you.

Yes, that's one thing I found when my novels were proofread, that I tended to name the OP in discussions too much. Took me a bit of effort to trim the named participants in conversations, but seven books in, I think I've got the hang of it!

However, posting is different to talking. It is asynchronous, there is zero additional context or subtext, and it is more formal in the sense that most of us personally do not know each other.

Still, I'm happy not having to name PF'ers in replies, it's way easier

 

[berkeman]

Just seems polite to refer to people by name if you're conversing...unnamed commentator! But if I ignore the wink, and take that you're a Mentor at face value, I'll stop with the '@' mention as it's actually easier.

For me, if I'm mentioning another user in a post, I tag them with the @. If I quote part/all of their post (which flags that user modulo their notification settings), I usually will just refer to them in my post with their username without the @.

 

[symbolipoint]

Convenience depends on which member name you want to refer. Too too often I want to refer to a member in a topic who said a posting more than one or two postings previous, regardless of if or how I present a quotation. I prefer to add the '@' symbol myself. This much of the system is fine as it is.

 

[phinds]

Convenience depends on which member name you want to refer. Too too often I want to refer to a member in a topic who said a posting more than one or two postings previous, regardless of if or how I present a quotation. I prefer to add the '@' symbol myself. This much of the system is fine as it is.

 

[phinds]

You can write as if you are talking to the person who is physically present with you. For instance,

That is NOT a good idea. I've had occasions where I was responding to a post an another post snuck in between my answer and the post I was answering. If I just said "you", it would sound like I was addressing the poster who's post came right before mine.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

That is NOT a good idea. I've had occasions where I was responding to a post an another post snuck in between my answer and the post I was answering. If I just said "you", it would sound like I was addressing the poster who's post came right before mine.

If you quote the person you are replying to, then there will be no issue. Otherwise you should ping that person.