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.

I think some of us just want to not be able to see people, without them needing to know about it.

Then you wouldn't provide feedback. Then they wouldn't know that you, particularly, were ignoring them. Or do you dislike to the idea of allowing folks to know that they are speaking to a room full of people with their backs turned and fingers stuffed in their ears?

Blocking all posts from a user is the only thing that makes any sense to me.

Jon's idea sounds great. I do not have strong feelings about the wording used.

I, for one, don't want to know why people are ignoring me. And I really don't think I want to know who is ignoring me.

what percentage of their posts are being ignored

Then by that you mean what %age of users are ignoring them? Since all of their posts or none of their posts will be viewed.

Rob, I have to say, I very strongly dislike the feedbacky parts of your proposal. A user filter should be between me and my god. Or my profile, whatev.

We have a good tradition around here of pointing out when people are out of line. We manage to do it more civilly than most places do. If I want to tell someone why they're pissing me off, that's best handled out in the open. If I just like the quiet and I want to filter them for my own headspace reasons, that's something I don't even want them to know. My filter isn't for them to be given corrections, it's for me. And even more strongly, I think that telling people "7 users are currently filtering you" is ugly and paranoia-inducing for the same reasons I absolutely hated whuffie or whatever the hell it was called.