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?
madmalkavhas left
brilliancehas left
10rokitahas left
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
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
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
Douglas Terabytehas left
AGENT 47has left
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
sonnyhas joined
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
kikuchiyohas left
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 ✏
endymion666has joined
brilliancehas joined
a
again, "online" and "away" on mobile are very blurry concepts
a
if 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
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 :)
Link Mauvemakes 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!
brilliancehas left
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
cuchas left
cuchas joined
perflysthas left
Douglas Terabytehas joined
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...
kikuchiyohas joined
stvnhas left
stvnhas joined
alexhas left
sonnyhas joined
AGENT 47has joined
perflysthas joined
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.
alexhas joined
jjrhhas left
AGENT 47has left
jjrhhas joined
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…
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
tom
I do have to wonder why that behavior was never defined properly in a XEP
AGENT 47has left
AGENT 47has joined
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