Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Unflip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Unflip

1 2 3

Original poster

Private Messages

55 replies

SoupDragon · 21/01/2012 17:44

Why can't we block posters before they send a PM?

Personally, I'd rather like to be able to block PMs completely, like we used to be able to opt out of CAT messages.

OP posts:

MNHQ

FrannyMumsnet · 04/11/2015 12:47

Hi folks,

I've got some questions for you about PMs. Since you have shown an interest in PMs previously, I'd like to get your comments.

Please go to this thread to join in: Do you use private messaging on Mumsnet?

thanks

PinotMN · 25/01/2012 13:28

Can the hand be fashioned into the "flicking V's" sign too?

AbsofCroissant · 25/01/2012 13:26

I think a big hand picture, with text saying "talk to the" should suffice.

Original poster

SoupDragon · 25/01/2012 12:48

With the CATS you just got a message saying the poster has opted out. This would cover both opting out entirely or blocking someone.

OP posts:

Original poster

SoupDragon · 25/01/2012 12:48

Or a message that says "fuck off, this poster doesn't want to talk to you" depending on circumstances

OP posts:

Maryz · 25/01/2012 10:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LovesBeingWearingSkinnyJeans · 23/01/2012 14:17

bibbitybobbityhat Sat 21-Jan-12 22:26:57
Well now I just want to know what you said in the pm you wanted deleted skinnyjeans ...

wasn't anything bad, I'm not the pervy pm'er, Just one tgat I'd started but got distracted by ds and then sent but by the time I'd sent it op had reposted and it meant my pm could have looked insensitive at best

Original poster

SoupDragon · 22/01/2012 16:17

"No having to opt in to allow specific people. Too much faff."

I wouldn't want an opt in, just the option to block before an unwanted poster PMed you.

I can see how an option to operate on an Opt In basis would be good for some posters though - you could say "PM me" and add them to the list.

OP posts:

flowery · 22/01/2012 16:10

Minor hassle only, really, but I just feel very guilty having to refuse requests (or ignore as per MNHQ's recommendation after I requested complete blocking), and would rather I didn't see them in the first place.

ChippingInLovesEasterEggs · 22/01/2012 15:57

Flowery - that's what comes of being 'useful' Perfect the art of uselessness and no one will bother you

KatieMiddleton · 22/01/2012 15:56

Either block completely or leave as is. No having to opt in to allow specific people. Too much faff.

However, if I was working at MNHQ I would do hours of unpaid over time reading PMs and looking up namechanges

LeBOF · 22/01/2012 15:50

Yes, I can see why you'd want to, flowery.

flowery · 22/01/2012 15:26

I've asked about blocking PMs completely before, so count me as a vote in favour of that option.

Agincourt · 22/01/2012 15:25

I had a really concerning one so had to change my name

Rosa · 22/01/2012 15:25

I have always had 'normal' PM until about a month ago when I got a very weird one which was literally about a sentence. On asking 'excuse me what are you on about?' I got a referral to a post I had made over 6 weeks ago. It wasn't even what I would call a nasty one - by some peoples standards. I decided the person was not somebody that I wished to have any more contact with so blocked them. Other than that I have been very happy with them. Maybe it could be an option to either yes be available to receive them or no thanks you would rather not.

PinotVaggio · 22/01/2012 15:20

I think I'm all in favour of MNers being able to choose.

Original poster

SoupDragon · 22/01/2012 13:25

"I have only experienced supportive and pleasant pm's so no I wouldn't vote for this one"

Except why would it bother you that people could do it? They are private messages so it wouldn't make a thread read strangely like an "ignore poster" option would. You can already block posters so it's not like it makes a difference. All that would happen is, I imagine, you get a message saying this poster does not accept PMs". You wouldn't necessarily know whether the poster accepts any at all or has just blocked you. This is exactly what used to happen if you opted out of CAT

It affects absolutely no one except the person choosing their own PM preferences, just like we used to be able to do.

OP posts:

Original poster

SoupDragon · 22/01/2012 13:22

At the moment you can block a poster from sending you a PM.

You can only do this is you read the PM from the poster you wish to block.

I want to be able to block a poster without having to read the PM.

Given you can already block people, that's really not a lot to ask is it?

OP posts:

BleatingRose · 21/01/2012 23:25

You don't actually have to read the pm. If you don't want any, just don't read them

ChaosTrulyReigns · 21/01/2012 22:47

ChippingInLovesEasterEggs · 21/01/2012 22:42

BTP - well, that's OK then

ChippingInLovesEasterEggs · 21/01/2012 22:42

Chaos - your pants are smokin'

NannyPlumIsMyMum · 21/01/2012 22:32

I have only experienced supportive and pleasant pm's so no I wouldn't vote for this one.

BeerTricksP0tter · 21/01/2012 22:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BeerTricksP0tter · 21/01/2012 22:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Unflip

1 2 3