Facebook thread response with just your name

[didds]

SAK why in a FB thread discussion some people with just reply to one person's post with the poster's name?

eg


Bert waffle waffle yadda yadda rguvarb rgubarb
Fred: @Bert@

(and where @Bert@ is actually just a link to that person's page etc).

??

didds

[swill453]

I haven't actually seen that, but it may be a way of getting notifications of any new posts in the thread. FB automatically fills in the name in a reply, so it's otherwise content-free.

I've seen some people just type 'F' (for Follow).

Either way it's brain-dead and a waste of people's time, they could just select "Turn on notifications for this post" from the menu.

Scott.

[tjh290633]

I have seen it a lot and it is a way of making sure other people get a notification of that post.

TJH

[didds]

so person B puts person A's name in a reply with nothing else, so that person A can see that person B has made a post containing only person A's name?

Oh. How ... obvious.

At the age of 57 I think I am now too old for social media!

didds

[Watis]

so person B puts person A's name in a reply with nothing else, so that person A can see that person B has made a post containing only person A's name?

Oh. How ... obvious.

At the age of 57 I think I am now too old for social media!

didds

No . . . it's so that A can see the original post, which B thinks will be of interest to A.

Watis

[JohnB]

This is discourteous to all third parties reading the thread, who themselves get notications. As always with social media, act it out as if in a pub "hey everyone, Fred would find this interesting"

[didds]

[

No . . . it's so that A can see the original post, which B thinks will be of interest to A.

Watis

i sort of see that... but in my example (and in fact happened to me last week) the original post was by A.

So B is attracting A's attention to A's post because B believes A would be intetrested in A's post? That deosnt make sense at all! LOL.


eg

A~: waffle waffle thingy wotsit
B: @A

didds

[elkay]

[

No . . . it's so that A can see the original post, which B thinks will be of interest to A.

Watis

i sort of see that... but in my example (and in fact happened to me last week) the original post was by A.

So B is attracting A's attention to A's post because B believes A would be intetrested in A's post? That deosnt make sense at all! LOL.


eg

A~: waffle waffle thingy wotsit
B: @A

didds

In this case I suspect B is confirming to A that B has seen the post and acknowledging it.

[swill453]

In this case I suspect B is confirming to A that B has seen the post and acknowledging it.

Or my original reply:

it may be a way of getting notifications of any new posts in the thread. FB automatically fills in the name in a reply, so it's otherwise content-free.

Scott.

[didds]

In this case I suspect B is confirming to A that B has seen the post and acknowledging it.

Yeah... I sort of get that... except... why not just "like" the post ?

didds

[didds]

In this case I suspect B is confirming to A that B has seen the post and acknowledging it.

Or my original reply:

it may be a way of getting notifications of any new posts in the thread. FB automatically fills in the name in a reply, so it's otherwise content-free.

Scott.

I get that Scott... yes... but in my case that piqued my (A) interest etc (again) there were no posts since my last/previous one., ie C & D & E hadn't also repsonded inbetween with B then "linking" me.

bizarre.

whatever

cheers all

didds

[Watis]

This is discourteous to all third parties reading the thread, who themselves get notications. As always with social media, act it out as if in a pub "hey everyone, Fred would find this interesting"

The third parties who receive notifications have already 'bought into' the thread. I'm certainly not bothered by this.

But, to use your pub metaphor, what is discourteous in a pub or restaurant is being interrupted in order to sing 'Happy Birthday' to a complete stranger.

Glad I got that off my chest!

Watis