Should the blinvisible be a link, so that you can click on it to expand the post?

Yes, please. Because sometimes, you need to see what the kerfuffle's all about.

Edit:

Click on "Hide" and Marcie is activated for that poster. The Hide link then gets automagically replaced with "Unhide" similar to how "Mark" gets replaced by "Marked". Click on "Unhide" and the user is UnMarcied, thus displaying that post (and all others by the poster).

Oooh. Jon is smart.

That's a very good idea, Jon. I never liked having to retype a user's name in a box, because there's that whole "getting it right" thing I'm not always so good with.

Jon's is better. I edited my post to add a link and it just stands out too much. Edit: plus even if it didn't, his is way easy to use and superior.

I like Jon's idea, too. It fits smoothly in with what we've already got, and it's simple. (From a user standpoint. What's the coding like?)

Plus, my idea is easier on the server, I think, since we only have to track which users Marcie wich other users. We don't have to track which specific posts are Marcied or rendered unblinvisible.

I definitely want to see the word "Blinvisible" used in a Marcied post, though. It makes me laugh every time I read it and especially if I say it out loud.

What's the coding like?

Simpler than the other way, at first blush. Then we should have an "unhide" option on your profile page with a list of blocked users.

So you'll be blocking by ID (immutable), not name (technically variable). I never quite tested what happens with WebX when the user you've ENUFed changes their name from the one you blocked them with.

I definitely want to see the word "Blinvisible" used in a Marcied post, though. It makes me laugh every time I read it and especially if I say it out loud.

Simple. Instead of 'hide' use 'Make blinvisible'. And then 'Unblinvisiblise'.

Here's the filtering feature I had in mind. I don't know if it's possible given how the back-end is implemented.

The goal behind my design is to allow you to easily ignore the posts from a particular user and optionally to provide them with feedback on why you don't want to read their posts.

A second goal is to allow Phoenix users to know what percentage of their posts are being ignored, and to read feedback, if available, about why they are being ignored.

The percentage would be calculated by the number of times a particular post was eliminated from the generated HTML dived by the number of times that post was requested at all.

I don't think the number should be limited, unless we find that having an unlimited number of users on your list to ignore would put undue strain on the server.

I don't have a strong feeling about the UI for the feature.

Um. I think some of us just want to not be able to see people, without them needing to know about it. More than one aim here.

I am very pro-limit, since every user blocked is more load on the server than not blocking.

I'm not sure, but Rob, were you thinking blocking posts as well as posters? I'd never block a post, since I'd already have read it, and the damage would be done. Plus -- larger tables.

And I'm anti the MARCIEd user knowing they were blinvisible, even if it's anonymous.