Facebook type chat client?

Zascar

I think it might be cool to have an in built chat application - so instead of sending someone a pm, if they are online you can chat with them like using the chat client on facebook.

If this even is possible, do you think it would be a good addition to the site?

Overheal

Im not a big fan of IMs. Remember when Tom Hanks got that IM off Meg Ryan and he was like OHSH!ITOHSH!TOHSH!T

IMs have too much Signal to Noise ratio in them anyway... "Hi" "Oh hey what you doin" "nm u" "nm" <5 mins pause> "Well I g2g c ya" "kthxbye"

Not to mention IRC rooms are a pain in the ass to moderate.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Insect Overlord

Can anybody tell me when exactly the Boards IRC was shut down?
I'm sure I used it once or twice, but I can't remember if that was the old official one or just a smaller spin-off.

Faith

Zascar wrote: »

I think it might be cool to have an in built chat application - so instead of sending someone a pm, if they are online you can chat with them like using the chat client on facebook.

If this even is possible, do you think it would be a good addition to the site?

I think the admins are against the idea because it would take away from posting if people were having their own chats in chat rooms. Plus, it would probably be a drain on the servers.

An File wrote: »

Can anybody tell me when exactly the Boards IRC was shut down?
I'm sure I used it once or twice, but I can't remember if that was the old official one or just a smaller spin-off.

Eh, a certain troublesome user harassed someone on it, I believe, posting her home address and phone number - basically stalked the shít out of her and posted everything online.

Overheal

Yikes.































Was it Meg Ryan?

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Insect Overlord

Faith wrote: »

Eh, a certain troublesome user harassed someone on it, I believe, posting her home address and phone number - basically stalked the shít out of her and posted everything online.

Yeah, I heard all about the Bubbles incident! But...

eVeNtInE wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

... I cannot recall when it happened.

RoundyMooney

I'd love to see it happen, but I hazard that it won't;

(a) Because folk won't respect it and act the dick, and as a consequence,

(b) It won't fulfil one key requirement for discussion on boards.ie, namely that all discussion be strictly controlled through the process of moderation, most times fair but sometimes foul (i.e. sarcastic, biased, overbearing, and unnecessary), but always prevalent, and very hard to question.

I've been wrong before though, and would love to be on this occasion.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

Tar.Aldarion

This would be grand if set up between mutual friends.

robinph

Is that not what these guys - - - are for?

Overheal

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I'd love to see it happen, but I hazard that it won't;

(a) Because folk won't respect it and act the dick, and as a consequence,

(b) It won't fulfil one key requirement for discussion on boards.ie, namely that all discussion be strictly controlled through the process of moderation, most times fair but sometimes foul (i.e. sarcastic, biased, overbearing, and unnecessary), but always prevalent, and very hard to question.

I've been wrong before though, and would love to be on this occasion.

I can just imagine: someone gets banned, IMs the mod, hurls abuse, and hilarity ensues. Not to mention the amount of spammers who would sign up just to IM everyone adverts. And always for private webcam shows.

I guess with the right forward planning it could be done, and reasonably well. Maybe it should be looked into?

robinph wrote: »

Is that not what these guys - - - are for?

Need a gtalk button by the way

Zascar

No definitely not a group chat thing - basically exactly like the facebook chat client. People who you are conencted to, you can send them an im and chat. Would be handy

robinph

Overheal wrote: »

Need a gtalk button by the way

+1 for a gtalk button.

orestes

No.

That's it. There no point in reading any further because there's no expansion or explanation of my opinion, or the reasoning behind it. I have them, I just couldn't be bothered going into them as it would take too long because there are too many and they are too varied. This is only my personal opinion, but I'm standing by it.

No.

Just no.

javaboy

I agree with Oreo but for very different reasons.

orestes

javaboy wrote: »

I agree with orestes but for very different reasons.

Must see if I can get that done automatically by the filter or something

Cabaal

No need for boards.ie IM, thats what GTalk, MSN, Yahoo, ICQ is for
I wouldn't even consider Facebooks IM a proper IM platform/implementation

godtabh

RoundyMooney wrote: »

(b) It won't fulfil one key requirement for discussion on boards.ie, namely that all discussion be strictly controlled through the process of moderation, most times fair but sometimes foul (i.e. sarcastic, biased, overbearing, and unnecessary), but always prevalent, and very hard to question.

Boards.ie is a community. IM would be between two people. I dont see the ethos of boards changing as a result of the introduction of IM. The only difference I see between IM and PM is now you can report PMs and thats only a new thing

GuanYin

So long as there is a disable option... I don't care...

Jonathan

It wouldn't be that hard for boards to host a XMPP (aka jabber, what gtalk protocol is based on) server..

Nevyn

Any IM clients will automatically mean the site will be blocked for a while range of people in work. That alone is a reason not to.

seamus

Jonathan wrote: »

It wouldn't be that hard for boards to host a XMPP (aka jabber, what gtalk protocol is based on) server..

i proposed such a thing as a project a number of years ago. I'll dig it up and see what the outcome was.

seamus

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96965

It was shot down somewhat by ecksor, but I assume his long-term plans have changed

I would be very surprised if you couldn't get a plugin of sorts that would allow facebook-like chat. Seems like a reasonable suggestion, but it may require something else underlying it (such as a jabber server handling the chats).

Eoin

Thaedydal wrote: »

Any IM clients will automatically mean the site will be blocked for a while range of people in work. That alone is a reason not to.

That might not be the case at all. It would (or at least could) just be extra pages running some PHP and AJAX. No different application or port - just other pages on the site.

In fact, it could be useful for those people who have access to boards.ie, but not to IM clients.

Maybe some sysadmins here might know if that could cause the site to be classified differently by software like websense, but I doubt it.

RoundyMooney wrote:

(b) It won't fulfil one key requirement for discussion on boards.ie, namely that all discussion be strictly controlled through the process of moderation, most times fair but sometimes foul (i.e. sarcastic, biased, overbearing, and unnecessary), but always prevalent, and very hard to question.

It would just be providing a less clunky and more real time interface than PMs. I don't see how it would affect discussion on boards.ie at all.

javaboy

eoin wrote: »

That might not be the case at all. It would (or at least could) just be extra pages running some PHP and AJAX. No different application or port - just other pages on the site.

In fact, it could be useful for those people who have access to boards.ie, but not to IM clients.

Maybe some sysadmins here might know if that could cause the site to be classified differently by software like websense, but I doubt it.

A very smart websense type program's might heuristically tag it as a streaming web app which could get it blocked.

Zascar

Sure but realistically few companies use such programs.

Could it not have an option to switch on and off?

Eoin

javaboy wrote: »

A very smart websense type program's might heuristically tag it as a streaming web app which could get it blocked.

A company that uses that kind of software is very unlikely to allow their staff to access a site like this in the first place.

Zascar wrote:

Could it not have an option to switch on and off?

I think that would have to be an option as lots of people won't like it, but I don't think that would help any possible filtering problems. Personally I think a few other options on boards should be opt out as well, but that's another discussion.

Ron DMC

javaboy wrote: »

A very smart websense type program's might heuristically tag it as a streaming web app which could get it blocked.

Meh, some websense programs block boards as it is already. For example in my office:

Ronnys works easy to bypass Websense app wrote:

Reason: The Websense category Message Boards and Forums;Productivity is blocked

Plus, being able to switch it off/on like the facebook client in such a way that it doesn't load unless you're logged in and have it switched on in your preferences would prevent any blocking of the site, even if the chat bit was blocked.

Eoin

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Plus, being able to switch it off/on like the facebook client in such a way that it doesn't load unless you're logged in and have it switched on in your preferences would prevent any blocking of the site, even if the chat bit was blocked.

I don't think it would, if the site itself is classified as a banned site.

Ron DMC

eoin wrote: »

I don't think it would, if the site itself is classified as a banned site.

Depends how it's implemented. If the site is allowed as it is currently, and the chat bit is the bit that makes it blocked, then shouldn't the site still be allowed if the chat bit isn't loaded?

Especially if you need to be logged in for the chat element to load, then surely the Websense app wouldn't even pick up.

That said, I have no idea how websense apps work.

javaboy

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Depends how it's implemented. If the site is allowed as it is currently, and the chat bit is the bit that makes it blocked, then shouldn't the site still be allowed if the chat bit isn't loaded?

Unlikely. The odds are that once a website gets flagged as potential trouble, the whole site would probably be blocked. If they used a different domain for the chat traffic then it might be ok.

Eoin

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Depends how it's implemented. If the site is allowed as it is currently, and the chat bit is the bit that makes it blocked, then shouldn't the site still be allowed if the chat bit isn't loaded?

Especially if you need to be logged in for the chat element to load, then surely the Websense app wouldn't even pick up.

That said, I have no idea how websense apps work.

Some applications like websense seem to have both content filtering and classification filtering.

For instance, a page on the gmail domain: even if it had absolutely no content relating to webmail would be blocked if the policy didn't allow you to access webmail.

However, online videos might also be blocked, so a page under a news site like www.theregister.co.uk that might normally be available could be blocked if it has references to youtube. This happened to me in my last company.

faceman

As strange as it might sound, I think boards is too big a community for it to work properly. I would see a number of issues potentially arising:

* Open to abuse
* Used as a vehicle to air "What did you ban me for you *%&$" complaints
* Defeats the purpose of boards being a community given you cant 'share' a chat unless you are there to witness it.
* Moderation would be a nightmare
* Runs a big risk of making it seem large cliches are present.

seamus

faceman wrote: »

I would see a number of issues potentially arising:

* Open to abuse
* Used as a vehicle to air "What did you ban me for you *%&$" complaints
* Defeats the purpose of boards being a community given you cant 'share' a chat unless you are there to witness it.
* Moderation would be a nightmare
* Runs a big risk of making it seem large cliches are present.

It could work if it was completely limited to only chatting 1-to-1 and between friends. This cuts out any problems of abuse and makes it unlikely that anything substantial will be discussed.

I don't think it requires moderation. I'm loath to moderate PMs as it is, since they're effectively private conversations. I don't do anything about reported PMs unless it's spam or harrassment because you have the option to block the person and it's private, which is key here.

If it were to be turned into a chat room style thing, then moderation is needed, but we don't want a chat room. Not again

_blank_

seamus wrote: »

It could work if it was completely limited to only chatting 1-to-1 and between friends.

Yep, JUST LIKE facebook.

I can't see why anyone who is capable of using Facebook in work would have a problem with this type of thing on Boards.

Jonathan

There are many times when you want to have a private chat with someone but not exactly formal. PM's are a bit cumbersome for this purpose.


The beauty of a XMPP server would be that people could access it externally.

It would mean that I could connect using pidgin, mr applefanboi could connect using adium, and mr webuser can connect using a client built into boards.

If you think Mr IT department will block it, you can simply disable the webclient, and run a XMPP client on some webhosting somewhere. Keep moving it around and they cant stop you forever.

Eoin

Jonathan wrote: »

There are many times when you want to have a private chat with someone but not exactly formal. PM's are a bit cumbersome for this purpose.

Yep - I think some folks might be missing what I think the point is - simply a less clunky and less formal way to chat than PM, just like it's a more casual way to chat than email. I can't see how it would take from any discussion at all.

seamus

Jonathan wrote: »

If you think Mr IT department will block it, you can simply disable the webclient, and run a XMPP client on some webhosting somewhere. Keep moving it around and they cant stop you forever.

Problem that people is pointing out is that along with particular algorithms to detect types of traffic on a site, most softwares also maintain a central database of site types. All it takes is one overly vigilant admin to flag boards.ie as "social networking" or "internet chat" in the central database and everyone using that software blocks boards.ie at the next update.

Eoin

This is true seamus, but as I said, I believe anywhere that is that zealous wouldn't allow access to a message board site in the first place.

TimTim

faceman wrote: »

As strange as it might sound, I think boards is too big a community for it to work properly. I would see a number of issues potentially arising:

* Open to abuse
* Used as a vehicle to air "What did you ban me for you *%&$" complaints
* Defeats the purpose of boards being a community given you cant 'share' a chat unless you are there to witness it.
* Moderation would be a nightmare
* Runs a big risk of making it seem large cliches are present.

The solution I see to those problems is to restrict it to mutual friends that are currently set up in vbulletin, but in doing this are you eliminating the main reason for using it in the first place?

Jonathan wrote: »

There are many times when you want to have a private chat with someone but not exactly formal. PM's are a bit cumbersome for this purpose.


The beauty of a XMPP server would be that people could access it externally.

It would mean that I could connect using pidgin, mr applefanboi could connect using adium, and mr webuser can connect using a client built into boards.

If you think Mr IT department will block it, you can simply disable the webclient, and run a XMPP client on some webhosting somewhere. Keep moving it around and they cant stop you forever.

I don't know if an XMPP server is right for this purpose, but there is a hell of a lot of work in moving it around all the place, how would you get the users to be able to connect consistantly and not present is also as a way of blocking it at the same time?

eoin wrote: »

This is true seamus, but as I said, I believe anywhere that is that zealous wouldn't allow access to a message board site in the first place.

Agreed, if people were going to block boards they would've done it already.

Sarky

An File wrote: »

Yeah, I heard all about the Bubbles incident!

It's not funny.

Insect Overlord

Sarky wrote: »

It's not funny.

Neither is quoting week-old posts...