Would that have a negative impact on the usefulness, if you had to see someone's post to block them?

IMO, no. I mean, that's how bookmarking currently works, right? (You can mark or unmark a post in-thread, but only delete from the bookmarks page?)

My read had been that you could block a poster from a link in the psot header, and unblock them there too. Which would mean there'd need to be another link to just unhide the post.

That was my read too. But I wasn't imagining that unhiding a post would only unhide one post. I assumed that viewing an annoying poster's posts would be an all-or-nothing choice. If you want to read a blocked poster's post, you click unhide. All the poster's posts become unblinvisible. When you're done, you click hide again, and go on your merry way.

If we have an attempt that breaks everyones message centre and everyone has to change browser settings, it's not the right solution.

I'm not sure it was everyone (there were five people who mentioned having a problem), but point taken.

It's a tough trade off though. More people might be affected by the Message Center not refreshing right away, but when you lose a long post because you didn't compose it in a separate program, that's a much nastier problem.

But I wasn't imagining that unhiding a post would only unhide one post.

Ah -- TT worked that way, right? That's what I'm remembering. Personally, I'd like to do it on a post by post basis. Not that I will, but I imagine.

More people might be affected by the Message Center not refreshing right away, but when you lose a long post because you didn't compose it in a separate program, that's a much nastier problem.

Until I/we find the *right* way, I think the lost posts, while irritating (happens to me too, on my work computer), are more work-aroundable.

Personally, I'd like to do it on a post by post basis. Not that I will, but I imagine.

Seems like it could be designed so that "unblock-a-post" would be an add-on. That is, let's get the block-a-poster-and-all-his/her-posts done first. Adding the unblock-a-single-post wouldn't require us to undo what had already been done.

My read had been that you could block a poster from a link in the psot header, and unblock them there too. Which would mean there'd need to be another link to just unhide the post.

Yeah, see...fine if I can Marcie or unMarcie a whole poster just by clicking on one post of theirs, convenient and all, but if I just want to see that post, but not any of their usual stuff?

Yeah, see...fine if I can Marcie or unMarcie a whole poster just by clicking on one post of theirs, convenient and all, but if I just want to see that post, but not any of their usual stuff?

I'm not sure I'm getting the point of post-level vs. user-level blocking, but that may be just a matter of how I imagine the process flowing. In my mind, it goes,

1. I don't like poster X, so I block him/her
2. There is either (a) a kerfuffle or (b) something that looks interesting in reference to a particular one of his/her posts.
3. Using the link in the post header, I unblock him/her and read.
4. When I'm done, if I haven't changed my mind and decided X is a misunderstood genius, I block him/her again.

This does require an "unblock" link in the header rather than going to another page, and I'm very much in favor of that either way, but it's not like unblocking for one post requires me to go back and read all of X's past stuff. I guess I'm not seeing why it requires a separate feature aside from blocking/unblocking.

Apologies for the borderline-ooky use of "process" and "flow" btw.

Cool. I was thinking like meara, that I'd want to be able to unblock a single post, but Jon and Amych's explanation works for me.

There is nothing ooky about process or flow, grumble, but otherwise I'm with amych.

There is nothing ooky about process or flow

Nothing at all ooky about the, uh, process. I was just looking over it before I hit "post" and said, "ooh, buzzword!".