tomI notice that all the users using Conversations are misreporting their presence and saying they are online 100% of the time. Conversations is the only client I have noticed this behavior and other clients users use set their presence to AWAY (auto-idle) after ~15 minutes or so.
Is this a bug in conversations or perhaps a bad default? How can I as a server operator and muc owner enforce proper auto-away presence behavior for the Conversations users besides asking every single on to check their settings which is a logistics nightmare besides auto-kicking 100% online users with a help message?
Is this a bug on Conversations that can be fixed in an update?
madmalkavhas left
brilliancehas left
10rokitahas left
abelieve it or not, most Conversations users are indeed online 100% online
abelieve it or not, most Conversations users are indeed online 100% of time
ait's a mobile client
Huxxhas left
Beherithas left
pep.tom: why should users be forced to report their activity? my client also says I'm always available because I ask it to.
pep.Ftr though, it's easy enough to guess activity looking at Conversations presence spam
Beherithas joined
tom a, the users in my muc are not
tomI'll say something and it could be hours before i get a response
awhat's is "online" is up to debate
tom
» <pep.> tom: why should users be forced to report their activity? my client also says I'm always available because I ask it to.
I don't think all these users have opted specificity into spoofing their presence.
tomAnd I own the muc. It's a policy decision.
pep.what policy?
pep."you shall reveal your true activity!"
pep.?
tomAnother part is that for a acronym where half the name stands for 'presence protocol'
tomThe presence side seems broken
tompep.: policy is don't idle in the chat all the time without reporting away status
pep.Can I always be away then?
tomIt's misleading to users who want to talk
stvnWhy does it matter ?
stvnJust send message people will answer if they wanna
tomI shouldn't have to do that manually
tomIn a presence protocol
pep.Or is it ok if I away right after writing every single time :)
pep.tom: you do what you want with your client
tomAnd if users are actively seeking conversation there's free-for-chat
tomOk pep under you model for XMPP
» <stvn> Just send message people will answer if they wanna
this is literally what I have to do if I want to find out who's participating in chat
tomA
tomAGENT 47:
tomalex:
tomalien:
tomargon3771:
tomSo and and so forth
tomFor XM-Presence-Protocol this is absurd and distracting
pep.maybe you're more of a synchronous person. some do asynchronous chat and are just fine with it :)
tomI'm asking if there's a way to signal people on Conversations client since that's where these users with all broken presence come from
pep.They're not broken the way you hear it though
pep.And if that's a policy decision in your chatroom, maybe just tell these users clearly
tomThat's what I'm asking
tomIs there a better way to do this than paging all users
tomSomething programmtic
Douglas Terabytehas left
AGENT 47has left
aI'm not sure you have power to control other people's clients
pep.disco identity might help
pep.As much as I find this policy weird
pep.a: not but as the muc owner he choses who gets in
tomBesides this
pep.if people aren't happy with the policy they can leave
tomI'm thinking an XMPP bot that mentions a user of they are with a Conversations UserAgent, presence is ONLINE and hasn't said anything in x hours asking them if they are really online
athat will be very annoying
tomHelps them fix their setting or kicks them if no response
tomYeah a that's why I'm trying to figure out a better solution
sonnyhas joined
apersonally, I do not want to participate in a chatroom, where I'm obliged to reply something on other people messages
abut if you got really popular MUCs...
pep.tom: why not just accept the fact that some clients don't want to be leaking presence
pep.because a protocol has feature X and Y doesn't mean I have to be using them all
kikuchiyohas left
stvn^
athere's actually a setting in Conversations which marks you away if you lock your screen
tompep.: I'm totally fine if some users want to spoof presence. But the problem comes when a client spoofs BY DEFAULT. So you have a room reporting several hundred participants but only a small portion of them are actually active. That's misleading
abut I didn't enable it, since I'm available with a locked screen
pep.why does it matter?
abut I didn't enable it, since I'm available even when my screen is locked
endymion666has joined
brilliancehas joined
aagain, "online" and "away" on mobile are very blurry concepts
aif your phone is on, I'd say you're online
stvnhas left
sonnyhas left
pep.Note that I'm actually curious about why it matters because I do like seeing presence as well and I can't put words on the why. I won't go as far though as forcing people to set their status properly. I guess I just like knowing if I'm answering to a support question to somebody who's left already and is never coming back.
stvnhas joined
mikeonline/offline became blurry concepts when multiple devices became the norm, and we're not dialling up from a single computer any more.
aif you don't participate in a discussion, especially in a group discussion, you're not "away" automatically
amaybe you don't like this chat that much
pep.yeah you're just not participating in this chat :)
tomIt's about response time expectation
awho sets this expectation?
awho have this person such power?
mikeI'm away most of the time, but if someone mentions me in a chat, I pull my phone out and check.
tomThe moderator
awho gave this person such power?
Link Mauvemakes a mental note to never go in this room. :D
ais it in rules of conference room? "you have to presaging react to reach message?"
ais it in rules of conference room? "you have to react to reach message?"
ais it in rules of conference room? "you have to react to each message?"
Link MauveI’ve had to teach some friends that being online doesn’t mean I’m necessarily on the computer atm, nor ready to chat with them.
tomI havn't needed to make it a rule yet
Link MauveBecause turns out, I happen to sometimes be doing other things than answering right away!
brilliancehas left
tomThen your away
aI'm sorry Tom, I don't want to sound offensive and such, but I think that you want to try to enforce excessive things. maybe it's not worth it. people don't like this stuff.
tomThat's why I am discussing this
tomLooking for a better solution that having a bot page people
tomTo bring conversations's behavior into what other clients are doing
tomIf this bug won't get fixed upstream I've no choice but to put a workaround server side
tomWeather that work around is checking useragents and paging users and kicking idlers or re-writing their presence for them I don't know yet
cuchas left
cuchas joined
perflysthas left
Douglas Terabytehas joined
tomThat's why we have useragent headers in protocols in the first place. SO to change behavior of the server for misbehaving clients or clients with defects
athis doesn't feel like a bug, I'd say it's rather a feature. for me it's very convenient
tomI'd like to have a proper client fix
pep.> tom: It's about response time expectation
tbh I get this, but as many people said here, status doesn't mean much. Also I won't go enforcing whatever weird idea you're talking about in people :x
pep.> tom: It's about response time expectation
tbh I get this, but as many people said here, status doesn't mean much. Also I won't go enforcing whatever weird idea you're talking about on people :x
tomA my way or the highway approach doesn't lead to as good of outcomes as having some kind of policy approach either
tomAnd without a XEP, toggle, or something I'm forced to put useragent specific metigations in
pep.It also doesn't feel like a bug to me, but that's up to whoever sets design guidelines for Conversations anyway :)
tomEven Teamspeak had a Suggest PTT function
aTom, don't waste your time on trying to "fix this upstream", this will probably never happen, and if you insist on "fix" it somehow — save your time and go ahead.
aTom, don't waste your time on trying to "fix this upstream", this will probably never happen, and if you insist on "fixing" it somehow — save your time and go ahead.
abut how to do this, you probably know best...
kikuchiyohas joined
stvnhas left
stvnhas joined
alexhas left
sonnyhas joined
AGENT 47has joined
perflysthas joined
thndrbvrI don't know off hand what my presence settings are across multiple devices: phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, and all the various XMPP clients and accounts integrated/bridged in via Matrix.
I'd say, I'm often around one device or another and if mentioned, and it's something I can and am willing to deal with near-immediately I'd think of myself as being "available" at that moment.
As for MUCs, those are for lurking anyway.
alexhas joined
jjrhhas left
AGENT 47has left
jjrhhas joined
thndrbvrIt looks like on my phone / Pix-Art Messenger, I have it set to manage my availability manually but I almost never bother to change statuses. Lol. I think originally I wanted to manually adjust the priority…
AGENT 47has joined
podhas left
loopboomhas left
endymion666has left
endymion666has joined
AGENT 47has left
AGENT 47has joined
perflysthas left
perflysthas joined
AGENT 47has left
AGENT 47has joined
brilliancehas joined
kikuchiyohas left
kikuchiyohas joined
jayteeukhas left
jayteeukhas joined
jayteeukhas left
jayteeukhas joined
kusonekohas left
kusonekohas joined
kusonekohas left
kusonekohas joined
perflysthas left
tomI do have to wonder why that behavior was never defined properly in a XEP
AGENT 47has left
AGENT 47has joined
tomIf it's not here is how I would define it:
set to AWAY with message auto-away if the user has not interacted with a human interface device in the last 15 minutes
tomThis would also match the behavior of most popular XMPP clients already in the wild