Topic Options
#39127 - 11/22/10 06:25 AM Sending private massages
RS Offline
Member

Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 81
Loc: South Africa, Johannesburg
Is this capability on the forum disabled on purpose? Can it be enabled?
Regards
Ranka
_________________________
Regards
Ranka

Top
#39131 - 11/22/10 08:10 AM Re: Sending private massages [Re: Ray_Delaforce]
Wolfe Offline
CGNP
Member

Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 1182
Loc: South Carolina, US
I think Ranka is referencing the fact that we used to be able to send other forum users private messages. It seems like this functionality has been disabled.
_________________________
Dave Wolfe

Top
#39132 - 11/22/10 09:25 AM Re: Sending private massages [Re: Wolfe]
Ray_Delaforce Offline
Member

Registered: 01/02/03
Posts: 743
Loc: Houston, TX
Ok Dave

Really, the forum is for public use in the main. The responses to points raised are there for all participants to benefit.
_________________________
Sincerely,
Ray Delaforce
CADWorx & Analysis Solutions
Hexagon PPM

Top
#39134 - 11/22/10 09:35 AM Re: Sending private massages [Re: Ray_Delaforce]
Wolfe Offline
CGNP
Member

Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 1182
Loc: South Carolina, US
I agree. However, sometimes the problems raised are specific to the implementation and/or company standards. In such cases it is more appropriate to have an offline discussion.

Also, due to internet spam bots, it's not considered safe or good practice to post an email address on a site. I think it fosters communication between users to allow safe, personal communication through the site as well, and I know several users have commented on missing the messaging feature.
_________________________
Dave Wolfe

Top
#39136 - 11/22/10 10:12 AM Re: Sending private massages [Re: Wolfe]
Richard Ay Offline
Member

Registered: 12/13/99
Posts: 6195
Loc: Houston, Texas, USA
Wolfe,

I agree, it is dangerous to post personal e-mails on a Discussion Forum. However, we do have formal Support Channels setup for anything more than a casual question.

The "Private Messaging" was turned off for several reasons:

1)Too many people were sending support requests in via PMs. The fact that a PM exists is not overly obvious and sometimes these sat unanswered for a couple of days - which upset the sender.

2) Most questions are applicable to a number of people, so posting in the Forum benefits everyone. What we were seeing is that people were sending PMs for questions already answered on the Forum, all they had to do was "search".

3) Then there were those that were using PMs to send larger issues (not a question, but a job file with some type of problem) that really needs to go through Tech Support Channels. This is very important when the PM is sent to someone who is out of the office.
_________________________
Regards,
Richard Ay - Consultant

Top
#39139 - 11/22/10 11:48 AM Re: Sending private massages [Re: Richard Ay]
Wolfe Offline
CGNP
Member

Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 1182
Loc: South Carolina, US
Thanks for the info!
_________________________
Dave Wolfe

Top
#39148 - 11/22/10 11:17 PM Re: Sending private massages [Re: Wolfe]
RS Offline
Member

Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 81
Loc: South Africa, Johannesburg
Thanks for your responses. Your justification for having it disabled makes sense for all of the above reasons.
My reason why I wanted it enabled is slightly different: I have actualy recognised someone posting on the forum that I wanted to get in touch with for more general communication and not to do with a specific Caesar issues. Unfortunately I do not have his details to contact him outside of the forum.
I understand your policy and it is fine, I will make a plan...
_________________________
Regards
Ranka

Top



Moderator:  Richard Ay 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 35 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Forum Stats
12023 Members
14 Forums
16898 Topics
74855 Posts

Max Online: 303 @ 01/28/20 11:58 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Borzki 9
Richard Ay 4
vermaccio 3
ver43138 3
maharaja 2