Direct messages: hmm
9/12 '23
A user has asked if I would consider adding direct messaging to OPW. Hmm.
I can think of one constraint on that feature right away: the bar to establish your right to DM someone needs to be pretty high. Like maybe you have to be mutual followers to start with, and then you can request DM access from that person. Even then I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's certainly not posting once a day. But it has a lot of important applications in situations that call for compassion, rather than being a stickler for the "spirit of things." Hmm.
Private comments to specific responders on a particular post have also been mentioned as an idea. Perhaps you, as the original poster, would be able to reply to a commenter privately.
That stays closer to the idiom of One Post Wonder, but I think that it could generate confusion, e.g. accidental references to things said in private comments in public comments on the same post.
What do you think?
That said, not all your users are me. Which is good, because how much drooling over Mandy Patinkin can one site sustain without exploding into a festival of yiddish, dad jokes and puppies?
Here's the argument for no DMs. And yes, I peeked over your shoulder and copied some answers, but I agree with you.
1. DMs <> posting once a day.
To me, OPW is "I care about this thing enough to use my one post on it" and "We comment on this thing you selected", so the comments are ... part of it!*
2. It's a free site. You do this for love. And we appreciate it! Enabling and maintaining DMs = more work for you technically and perhaps emotionally depending on the yeses and nos. Also, I am not sure how storage works with direct messaging and privacy, but that's money too.
3. I think private comments could be a whole lot of drama. You've already mentioned how and I agree.
4. You want to say no and I think you should.
Here's the argument for DMs on OPW, I think:
1. I want to reach out to somebody privately and I don't have their contact info.
2. ?
For #1, the solution is "ask them". At least it is as far as I can see ... they could say no, but with DMs they could say no anyway, so ... ?
* "part of it" like the skeletons in the David S. Pumpkins SNL sketch.
PS to the person who asked for DMs - I probably know you and like you and I am not trying to yuck your yum, I just disagree with you.
If you put it in that framework, many of the implementation questions and concerns may answer themselves. I'd especially suggest that the default settings might be "my DMs are closed; no permission given now to anyone to DM me; it's a separate question for each person I follow now; and I have to actively say 'yes' for each new person I follow".
* Add a new key
* Put only that one person on it
* Spend your post for the day on a post locked to the key that's just for them
* After that they can comment on that post and go back and forth with you
* Which generates more notifications
* And you can keep replying on that thread
* Somebody is probably doing this
* I'm amused
This reminds me of when that general had an affair with some woman in the military, can’t remember her rank, and they communicated through unsent Gmail messages.
Except it’s not anything like it.
(Head slap) CIA director Petraeus and Paula Broadwell. That’s it.
I don't need a DM feature, but that may be because my list of OPW contacts is small and curated enough that I could get in touch with any of you without too much trouble.
By George, I think you've got it!