-
tom
I 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?
-
a
believe it or not, most Conversations users are indeed online 100% online✎ -
a
believe it or not, most Conversations users are indeed online 100% of time ✏
-
a
it's a mobile client
-
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
-
tom
a, the users in my muc are not
-
tom
I'll say something and it could be hours before i get a response
-
a
what'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.
-
tom
And I own the muc. It's a policy decision.
-
pep.
what policy?
-
pep.
"you shall reveal your true activity!"
-
pep.
?
-
tom
Another part is that for a acronym where half the name stands for 'presence protocol'
-
tom
The presence side seems broken
-
tom
pep.: policy is don't idle in the chat all the time without reporting away status
-
pep.
Can I always be away then?
-
tom
It's misleading to users who want to talk
-
stvn
Why does it matter ?
-
stvn
Just send message people will answer if they wanna
-
tom
I shouldn't have to do that manually
-
tom
In 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
-
tom
And if users are actively seeking conversation there's free-for-chat
-
tom
Ok 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
-
tom
A
-
tom
AGENT 47:
-
tom
alex:
-
tom
alien:
-
tom
argon3771:
-
tom
So and and so forth
-
tom
For 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 :)
-
tom
I'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
-
tom
That's what I'm asking
-
tom
Is there a better way to do this than paging all users
-
tom
Something programmtic
-
a
I'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
-
tom
Besides this
-
pep.
if people aren't happy with the policy they can leave
-
tom
I'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
-
a
that will be very annoying
-
tom
Helps them fix their setting or kicks them if no response
-
tom
Yeah a that's why I'm trying to figure out a better solution
-
a
personally, I do not want to participate in a chatroom, where I'm obliged to reply something on other people messages
-
a
but 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
-
stvn
^
-
a
there's actually a setting in Conversations which marks you away if you lock your screen
-
tom
pep.: 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
-
a
but I didn't enable it, since I'm available with a locked screen✎ -
pep.
why does it matter?
-
a
but I didn't enable it, since I'm available even when my screen is locked ✏
-
a
again, "online" and "away" on mobile are very blurry concepts
-
a
if your phone is on, I'd say you're online
-
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.
-
mike
online/offline became blurry concepts when multiple devices became the norm, and we're not dialling up from a single computer any more.
-
a
if you don't participate in a discussion, especially in a group discussion, you're not "away" automatically
-
a
maybe you don't like this chat that much
-
pep.
yeah you're just not participating in this chat :)
-
tom
It's about response time expectation
-
a
who sets this expectation?
-
a
who have this person such power?✎ -
mike
I'm away most of the time, but if someone mentions me in a chat, I pull my phone out and check.
-
tom
The moderator
-
a
who gave this person such power? ✏
- Link Mauve makes a mental note to never go in this room. :D
-
a
is it in rules of conference room? "you have to presaging react to reach message?"✎ -
a
is it in rules of conference room? "you have to react to reach message?" ✏
-
a
is it in rules of conference room? "you have to react to each message?" ✏
-
Link Mauve
I’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.
-
tom
I havn't needed to make it a rule yet
-
Link Mauve
Because turns out, I happen to sometimes be doing other things than answering right away!
-
tom
Then your away
-
a
I'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.
-
tom
That's why I am discussing this
-
tom
Looking for a better solution that having a bot page people
-
tom
To bring conversations's behavior into what other clients are doing
-
tom
If this bug won't get fixed upstream I've no choice but to put a workaround server side
-
tom
Weather that work around is checking useragents and paging users and kicking idlers or re-writing their presence for them I don't know yet
-
tom
That'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
-
a
this doesn't feel like a bug, I'd say it's rather a feature. for me it's very convenient
-
tom
I'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 ✏
-
tom
A my way or the highway approach doesn't lead to as good of outcomes as having some kind of policy approach either
-
tom
And 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 :)
-
tom
Even Teamspeak had a Suggest PTT function
-
a
Tom, 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.✎ -
a
Tom, 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. ✏
-
a
but how to do this, you probably know best...
-
thndrbvr
I 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.
-
thndrbvr
It 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…
-
tom
I do have to wonder why that behavior was never defined properly in a XEP
-
tom
If 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
-
tom
This would also match the behavior of most popular XMPP clients already in the wild