So, some users want to remove this “f4f” thing. YouTube removed their sub for sub because of monetization being lost, but how about a solution to the f4f issues? It helps combat spam comments.

(Mock-up needed) First, when a user goes to one’s profile, it would show an “f4f” button, which will make the user follow that person, and will send an f4f request on their messages.

(Mock-up needed) the user who receives a request will receive “(username) would like to f4f. Do you accept, or decline?”

If “decline” is chosen, the user sending the request automatically unfollows that person, for the request is denied.

If “accept” is chosen, the user receiving the request automatically follows the person who sent the request.

(Mock-up needed) the user who sent the request receives either a “Sorry, (user) has declined your request” if they declined, or a “congrats! You have f4f’d with (user)” if they accepted.

Of course, there would be an “unf4f” button, which would not need for a request.

If the person receives the request, they can go to the senders' f4f button to f4f.

Also, the button to turn it off would be in account settings.

There could also be a setting for the user to turn f4f on or off, if off, the button will not show on their profile. Turning it off will result in follow for follow and f4f being censored on any of the projects, studios that they own, not curate, and their profile. (Thanks to panglin- for reminding me to add this.)


A message would then say “sorry, this user is not doing f4f.”

Thanks to midtk for this: if a request has been denied three times once, then they can't f4f with that user.

Prime689 wrote:

I don't think that solves the problem.

The main reason why people hate f4f is spam, unnecessary mail given recipient by a user. It won't because it doesn't lessen the spam, only depicts it differently.

I think you skimmed through it and didn’t read through the last part…

Bump

Another possible feature: perhaps you can't send the request if it has been denied once?

mitdk wrote:

Another possible feature: perhaps you can't send the request if it has been denied once?

Denied three times, sure.

Bump

No support, this may encourage kids to think that scratch is based on fame

Scratchy697 wrote:

No support, this may encourage kids to think that scratch is based on fame

How would it? Please be constructive.

dhfbei8987 wrote:

Scratchy697 wrote:

No support, this may encourage kids to think that scratch is based on fame

How would it? Please be constructive.

Why would scratch implement an entire feature based on F4F? this will make kids think “If scratch implemented an entire feature on F4F then Scratch must be about fame”

Scratchy697 wrote:

dhfbei8987 wrote:

Scratchy697 wrote:

No support, this may encourage kids to think that scratch is based on fame

How would it? Please be constructive.

Why would scratch implement an entire feature based on F4F? this will make kids think “If scratch implemented an entire feature on F4F then Scratch must be about fame”

Nah, only an 8 year old would think of it that way.

Goodness, I can't believe I missed the toggling requests bit. I'm certainly not as observant as I thought.

This is an interesting premise, though I think it could be improved upon. It'd likely cut down on unwanted F4F requests, however, if someone had turned their requests off it's extremely likely they would still get comments such as “Hey, I know your F4F requests are off, but I think your projects are great and I was wondering if you would do F4F with me?” Or the less eloquent version from more ignorant users, a simple “F4F?”

However, again, this idea could be spectacular with some minor improvements. Perhaps (and I don't know how easy this would be to implement) there could be some sort of filter if your requests are turned off, for example catching the phrases “f4f” and “follow for follow”. If you tried to post a comment containing one of these on a F4F-free profile, you'd get a popup saying something like…

Le Filter Bot wrote:

Hmm, it looks like this user has their F4F requests off. Please be respectful and avoid posting unwanted F4F requests on others' profiles.

…or something of the like.

pangoliin- wrote:

Goodness, I can't believe I missed the toggling requests bit. I'm certainly not as observant as I thought.

This is an interesting premise, though I think it could be improved upon. It'd likely cut down on unwanted F4F requests, however, if someone had turned their requests off it's extremely likely they would still get comments such as “Hey, I know your F4F requests are off, but I think your projects are great and I was wondering if you would do F4F with me?” Or the less eloquent version from more ignorant users, a simple “F4F?”

However, again, this idea could be spectacular with some minor improvements. Perhaps (and I don't know how easy this would be to implement) there could be some sort of filter if your requests are turned off, for example catching the phrases “f4f” and “follow for follow”. If you tried to post a comment containing one of these on a F4F-free profile, you'd get a popup saying something like…

Le Filter Bot wrote:

Hmm, it looks like this user has their F4F requests off. Please be respectful and avoid posting unwanted F4F requests on others' profiles.

…or something of the like.

Oh my, I was going to add that, and forgot. Thanks for reminding me, though! The term itself should be censored if the user doesn’t do f4f; however, it would only apply to the user’s projects, owned studios, and profiles.

Scratchy697 wrote:

dhfbei8987 wrote:

Scratchy697 wrote:

No support, this may encourage kids to think that scratch is based on fame

How would it? Please be constructive.

Why would scratch implement an entire feature based on F4F? this will make kids think “If scratch implemented an entire feature on F4F then Scratch must be about fame”

The follow button already makes kids think that.

BearSlothCoding wrote:

Scratchy697 wrote:

dhfbei8987 wrote:

Scratchy697 wrote:

No support, this may encourage kids to think that scratch is based on fame

How would it? Please be constructive.

Why would scratch implement an entire feature based on F4F? this will make kids think “If scratch implemented an entire feature on F4F then Scratch must be about fame”

The follow button already makes kids think that.

Yes, so that point is technically invalid.

Unless you want to remove following, I can’t understand what scratchy697 is saying.

One small tweak,
The user shouldn’t follow the person immediately, just after the request is accepted, as this would prevent me from never accepting/declining and just getting free follows

plqaokwsijeduhrfyg wrote:

One small tweak,
The user shouldn’t follow the person immediately, just after the request is accepted, as this would prevent me from never accepting/declining and just getting free follows

Alright, understandable… I’ll edit the op soon.

I smell Costco food…

This may come across as blunt, but I don't think it's enough of an issue for there to be a dedicated feature to it. Just like advertising, it's sort of a natural thing that's going to pop up on the website. Even with this feature implemented, wouldn't people just pop up and say “visit my profile and click that f4f button! ”

This would be useful for combating spam, but how about, there is also a little icon next to the user if F4F is allowed. That would cut down on it more and would help complement this suggestion.

I really like this idea. Someone will have full control about “Yes, I want to f4f” - something what we don't have now.

dhfbei8987 wrote:

(Mock-up needed)

Edit: No support, but I'll keep the mockup. They should allow it, but not enforce it.