[allesfein]

Please move the profile window "Close Window" and "Pin" buttons back to the bottom of the window. Keep the icons at the top right, fine, but when chatting it's MUCH less convenient to move the cursor up to the top right when you're already at the bottom of the window or typing. Also, the "autofill" feature when inviting friends to partner in a tourney AND when typing their username in the "Chat to" box doesn't work correctly; sometimes nothing comes up (the former) and often everyone's names come up (the latter). Otherwise, GREAT UPDATE!

[barmar]

HMFAG has been making the assumption that you want to play with people you mark as "Friend" for years. So if we make that assumption about the person who clicks on "Take me to a table" or "List interesting table", why would it be so wrong to make the same assumption about the people at the prospective tables?

We don't currently do that, but it seems like it would be consistent to do so. This implies that mutual friends would like to play with each other. Although I suppose if the other player never actually uses HMFAG, his friend list might not be oriented towards people he wants to play with.

I guess this suggests that we need more specific lists of players -- people you want to play with, people you like to kibitz, people you just chat with, etc. I think this has been suggested in the past. But this level of complexity might be overkill.

[bagman]

olarim, on 2015-January-13, 12:08, said:

Sorry, but I have to agree with everyone here. The new feature of knowing if you're on someone's friendlist or not is, literally said, ridiculous. As BridgeGoth said above, it's a major privacy thing. Please explain, what are the benefits of this feature - if there are any? I just find this unacceptable. Please, quickly consider a removal of this feature before more people get hurt or interrogated by their closest because they found out they are on their friendlist or not.

//Ola Rimstedt

In my opinion it is a severe violation of privacy to let someone know if I have marked him/her as a friend. This also gives an oracle-like feature where I can friend a person and see if that's mutual and then neutral that person again. In addition to privacy, this feature also creates a humiliation feature; you expect to be on somebody's friend list but not are and now have means to check that.

Please remove this feature as it is. There could be a feature where there are two categories of friends; those I want to follow and do not expect to be friended back; and those whom I really consider friends. The difference with this approach is that it is only me who knows whom I consider what and I have now way to see what they consider me to be.

Pekka Viitasalo

[wynsten]

barmar, on 2015-January-17, 15:56, said:

HMFAG has been making the assumption that you want to play with people you mark as "Friend" for years. So if we make that assumption about the person who clicks on "Take me to a table" or "List interesting table", why would it be so wrong to make the same assumption about the people at the prospective tables?

We don't currently do that, but it seems like it would be consistent to do so. This implies that mutual friends would like to play with each other. Although I suppose if the other player never actually uses HMFAG, his friend list might not be oriented towards people he wants to play with.

I guess this suggests that we need more specific lists of players -- people you want to play with, people you like to kibitz, people you just chat with, etc. I think this has been suggested in the past. But this level of complexity might be overkill.

Oh - I didn't know that. I thought marking someone as a friend just put him in your friends list.
I don't think you need more lists. You already have too many lists (see Friends vs Followers controversy). I think you need more check-boxes accompanying friend/neutral/enemy.

[bridgegoth]

I thought HMFAG is for people who just want a quick game and don't care who with and are willing to play with randoms? I never use it, but I can't imagine people would use it to be expecting something other than pot luck. If someone wants to play with a friend, can't they search open tables for friends? Or better yet, send them a message and ask to play? (I for one know that BBOers are NOT shy about sending people invites!)

So I don't understand why BBO needs to reinvent the wheel to cater to something that in many ways isn't logical.

[barmar]

bridgegoth, on 2015-January-18, 10:38, said:

I thought HMFAG is for people who just want a quick game and don't care who with and are willing to play with randoms?

We try to put them at tables they're more likely to enjoy. So we use a number of criteria to put them at more compatible tables, such as similar skill levels and masterpoint levels, same country, no enemies. Playing with friends is just one more criteria that we use.

[scarletv]

barmar, on 2015-January-19, 09:24, said:

We try to put them at tables they're more likely to enjoy. So we use a number of criteria to put them at more compatible tables, such as similar skill levels and masterpoint levels, same country, no enemies. Playing with friends is just one more criteria that we use.

skill level : self rated will not tell much
masterpoint level : mainly shows if a player likes to play pay tournaments and how often
same country : some might like it, I don't. Additional buggy as using the IP address instead of he flag?
no enemies : that makes sense, but will no help much when your ignore list is short
playing with friends : when I wanted to play with one of my friends being online I could have easily found them without HMFAG

Do you really want players to enlarge their ignore lists to get a better match? There might be a reason why I don't like to play again with someone passing my splinter but is that a reason no longer to talk with?

[barmar]

Sure, the criteria we use is approximate, but is it really worse to use it? Just because you're willing to play with anyone doesn't mean we shouldn't bias it.

[wynsten]

barmar, on 2015-January-19, 10:15, said:

Sure, the criteria we use is approximate, but is it really worse to use it? Just because you're willing to play with anyone doesn't mean we shouldn't bias it.

No worse than random, I guess. But (except for "friends") it assumes I would prefer to play with people like myself (same skill, same master points, same country, etc). Personally, I'd be happy if you just went with "friends" (and by all means include both directions, just protect privacy by not telling me why I ended up with the partner I did). And document it, either implicitly (by changing the term "friend" to "preferred partner") or explicitly (in the documentation that most of us don't bother to read).

Also, I'd be interested to see some stats on how often "friends" end up being partners.

[kuhchung]

I would like to chime in with the following feedback:

I have no strong feelings for or against the friend/follow system.

[Feb1132B]

This is foolish and bothersome change. I would not have a person as a friend if did not want see them on when I come on. Please reverse it as soon as possible.

[lycier]

I strongly oppose this kind of the system by showing friends or following.
For example,I have more than two hundreds of the club members,it is impossible for me to add all the members into my friends list.After Friends/Follow system released,some people are very disappointed to find that they are not in my friends list,so they may be angry to delete me from their list ! But in my heart,I am very anxious to be everyone's friends.
President Obama's supporters have been regarded him as a friend,but it is impossible for them to be in the Obama's friends list,even though president Obama is very anxious to be everyone's friends.
We are fred's fans,and we have been regarded him as a friend,but it is impossible for us to be in the fred's friends list,even though fred is very anxious to be all the BBOers's friends.

The BBO's responsibility is to promote BBOers's friendship,not to reveal personal informations/ individual privacy.

[Dwingo]

wynsten, on 2015-January-17, 12:38, said:

There you go again, making unwarranted inferences. They don't necessarily want to play with me. They just want me in the list of people that you have decided to label "friends".

Even if they want to play with me, I may not be interested in playing with them. The logic that I would be interested in playing with them, just because I am their friends list is totally flawed.

[Dwingo]

This Friends thing really got me mad. I was expecting to be in the friends list of a few friends with whom I play regularly on BBO and occasionally face to face.
I can't ask them, why I am not in their list. Most of them do not use the Web version and hence will not know about it, even if I bring it up. Anyway, I have quietly defriended them, as I am not worthy to be on their list.

My humble request, please scrap this in the next upgrade.

[barmar]

lycier, on 2015-January-20, 04:53, said:

For example,I have more than two hundreds of the club members,it is impossible for me to add all the members into my friends list.After Friends/Follow system released,some people are very disappointed to find that they are not in my friends list,so they may be angry to delete me from their list ! But in my heart,I am very anxious to be everyone's friends.

If someone is so unreasonable, do you really care if they follow you? How would you even know that they deleted you?

lycier, on 2015-January-20, 04:53, said:

We are fred's fans,and we have been regarded him as a friend,but it is impossible for us to be in the fred's friends list,even though fred is very anxious to be all the BBOers's friends.

Since you know that, why would you consider it to be any kind of insult that he doesn't follow you? There's no reason for you to think he knows who most of you are, so why would you expect him to list you as friends?

[eleanorsf]

A couple points, and apologies if they have been addressed already.

1. Please add a link on the Home page to this topic so that more people can participate in the discussion. I'm sure you have stats on what percentage of BBOers post or follow Forum topics. The vast majority of my personal friends, and even my BBO Friends, don't know this is the place to be heard, or for that matter, that BBO Forums even exists.

2. Why was this feature added, without prior discussion among BBOers, when there are some bugs that need to be fixed, or practical features to add? For example, how many people have requested the feature of being able to find a sub for your red partner, without having to call TD, that works the same as the Windows client? My guess is often.

3. Why was this not tested as a Beta version before general rollout? There were so many bugs it's hard to believe much regression testing was done. Every problem uncovered in the first week (Sound On, 10 character names, having to type full friend name on Invite box, etc.) would have been found before it went live, and fixed, for a smoother introduction to the new features.

4. Next time, please post a list of 5 potential changes, and ask for votes. Do the survey from the Home page rather than this topic. While this may not fully dictate the future software enhancements, it should give you a better idea of what people want and need.

5. "Ignore" better describes the actual effect of putting someone on the former Enemies list. But I would prefer to see Enemy return in a more robust version. No chat, no invites, but add: never an Enemy partner in Indies, and never being asked to be a substitute partner for an Enemy. Then the worst case will be that an Enemy is an opp.

6. Please continue to think of cool things to add. It may get lost in the complaints and the bug reports, but this is a bold initiative, and one that will make BBO a better, more inviting place. Kudos.

[eleanorsf]

Technically this is not a bug, but it is needed for usability. When someone on the Following List is in BRB mode, it's extremely difficult to read the name. The faint taupe coupled with the faint blue doesn't provide enough contrast.

[MrAce]

Dwingo, on 2015-January-20, 07:35, said:

This Friends thing really got me mad. I was expecting to be in the friends list of a few friends with whom I play regularly on BBO and occasionally face to face.
I can't ask them, why I am not in their list. Most of them do not use the Web version and hence will not know about it, even if I bring it up. Anyway, I have quietly defriended them, as I am not worthy to be on their list.

My humble request, please scrap this in the next upgrade.

Ok, this is getting way too far.

Now I can understand those who complain and say that it is their private choice who they mark as friend and they do not want others to know that. Perfectly legit demand for them to ask for this feature to be scratched.

You on the other hand, taking online friendships and communities way too seriously. You are not the only one as I see in this topic who has emotionally attached to something that was not there. If I were you, I would appreciate this feature for waking you up from the dream world you were living in, instead of complaining. Think about it again, read the post you wrote. It is not the software that bothers you. It is your conscience. And change in this feature will not help you at all. You need to take down your entire logic pattern and rebuild it. This is the change that will help you.

[helene_t]

A handful of people which I consider "friends" somewhat surprisingly haven't friended me back. Maybe by accident. Maybe they want to limit their friend list to currently regular partners. Or maybe they just aren't my friends. Who knows. Anyway, obviously we are not taking about close friends. so I don't lose sleep on it.

Agree with Timo.

[diana_eva]

We rolled out Version 1.48M yesterday, mainly bug fixes. All the issues signaled in this thread should be fixed now. If you still get sound settings not kept or other weirdness clear cache please, to pick the latest version.