I would like to invite someone in a comments discussion underneath an answer to continue in Chat, but it doesn't seem to be a problem of that it is  It seems more that until now there is no possibility to create the room and invite someone before having exchanged at least 9 comments in turns (as tested below)  Please add an option to create a chatroom and link to it in a comments flow right away.
21650
When comments get too chatty the move-to-chat feature asks if you'd like to move it out. But this often happens after the fact and thus doesn't prevent it.   I propose that:   Move-to-chat be provided as a button along side so that a user who knows their question or conversation may become drawn out may elect to preempt and take the conversation "off-line"
117477
Over time, I've noticed an increasing practice among moderators of the smaller sites (i.e. not in the Trilogy) to move extended comment chains to chat, just because they're too long. Is this a good idea? In the past, I've taken the position on many occasions that I believe that comments serve two purposes only: clarification, and asking for clarification.  I take this position because as a mod I want the freedom to purge a comment trail that is clearly running off the rails without having to argue with anyone about politeness definitions. But that's not the same thing as two pedantic C++ language lawyers debating the finer points of &quot;undefined behavior.&quot;  I give wide latitude to such discussions, as long as the participants don't start throwing spears, because I believe they are instructive. The SE software even has accommodations for this.  Long comment chains are automatically collapsed, so as not to disrupt the Q&amp;A format of the post.  And moving a comment chain to chat is not even a move, really; to do an actual move, you have to perform the conversion, and then delete all of the copied comments from the post. Here is a recent example:  and it's accompanying . What I find amusing is that the OP's detailed POV about the term, where he floats a theory about why everyone thinks that &quot;bugged&quot; is not a thing (that conversation took place in the comments, and is now safely sequestered in the chat room) gets to stay prominently featured in his question, at the very top of the post. Now you could argue that the chat room is a better environment to have these discussions anyway, and you'd be right.  I could argue that if we're going to do that, then why not just automatically convert long discussions to chat rooms? The problem is not so much where the comments reside.  I don't understand why mods are taking it on themselves to fix something that isn't hurting the site (at least in my opinion).  In addition, every time I see this happen, the participants in the conversation immediately lose interest in it.  The only comment that was posted in that room after all the comments were moved is most likely this one:  It wouldn't surprise me if the folks using &quot;bugged&quot; to refer to a certain software quality are the same folks who refer to their programs as &quot;codes&quot; and who believe textspeak is the pinnacle of modern English.  Which nobody will ever see. :) Some mods are really aggressive about this.  I discussed this with a mod on Physics, and he told me that they routinely move discussions when they think they might run off the rails.
11066
I have had the bright idea of changing my user permissions so as guests cannot see the comments on a node. I have no problems with Views around my site, as they can clearly see there are comments on nodes, and they will be more inclined to register. The problem seems to be when they arrive on my site directly to a node, they don't see any comment, and think "that's a bit crap; let's go."  Is there a way I could show the amount of comments below a node?
60628
Unsurprisingly, most long discussion threads under a post involve the OP — and preventing them from commenting on their own question or answer will help to reduce comments being used for discussion.  If the OP wants to discuss someone's comment, they should have the immediate option to 'take discussion to chat' instead, and be able to @reply from there.  Obviously this would change the commenting behaviour of the OP, but there may be a significant side benefit: a reduction is comments that solicit discussion from other users as we come to realise that we can't simply start a discussion thread on the post any more. All the  would still work, as none usually require discussion:        Request clarification from the author;   Leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post;   Add relevant but minor or transient information to a post (e.g. a link to a related question, or an alert to the author that the question has been updated).
7135
Related Posts:              I was thinking about .  and I thought being able to leave a comment on a user profile would be a nice solution. Once in a while I have a question for a specific person. Once I notice a person doing OSdev and wanted to know about his projects he was working on. I remember a person mentioning a paper he did and I wanted to ask him more. I'm sure he didn;t notice my comment because he has many replies (which get commented on) and isn't on the site for days at a time. If he decided to look at his profile comments I am sure he would have a higher chance of noticing it.  I would like comments on user profiles. I dont think flamewars would be an issue and would be hard to follow if you cant reply back on the same page (you either cant post on your own profile and if you can the other person would be notified of the comment which may slow it down)
26104
Being able to join chat rooms from the Android app would be a plus! It would truly make us connected on the go, instead of having to sit down at our desks and open a browser window. This will allow more users to fully utilize the chat system and join events no matter where they are.
73255
While reviewing "First Posts" on Stack Overflow, I often come across new users posting comments as answers. It seems (at least to me) they are not doing this because they are unaware of how Stack Overflow works but because they can't comment on any question they are forced to put it as answer.  I have found duplicate questions for my request like:   ,  and    but the best explanation I have found is an  to .     I think the main reason this isn't supported is there's no way to   downvote comments, which would make them attractive to spammers. If   somebody comments on the top answer in a question the only way to get   rid of it is for six people to flag it. Comment flags don't show up on   10k tools, so it needs to be six people that happen to stumble across   the spam comment, or a moderator that checks the list manually. People   can comment every 15 seconds, so that can get out of hand pretty   quickly. Comments also aren't listed on the user's profile page, so   it's hard to see at a glance if a user has been spamming   So I am suggesting allowing new users (with less than 50 reputation points) to comment only 5 times every day or only 25 times times until they reach 50 reputation points or any other variation of it.
116155
Recently, we encountered a rather persistent user in a chat room, repeatedly attempting to engage with other users in the chat by editing their chat profile description and repeatedly leaving and re-entering the room in order to draw attention to themselves with the entry animation. Some users do indeed follow on to them, speaking to them in the main chat while they "respond" by editing their chat profile descriptions.  In my opinion, I don't like it when others do this, because it not only makes the chat one-sided and thus difficult to follow for other users, but it also violates the spirit of a suspension: they should not be able to get around the spirit of it by "chatting" via their chat bio with users who are willing to engage with them. In some cases, it can even smother existing topics and chats.  I'm aware that there exists a  to increase the force of a chat suspension, to prevent suspended users from being able to join rooms or edit their chat profile descriptions, and it could take a while for that to be implemented since resources seem to have been diverted away from chat development.  That said, given the current state of the chat moderation tools, what can moderators do against such users? The only actions one can take directly against the user are to clear out their chat profile description or delete their chat profile, but the user can quickly recreate those.  After some consideration, I think the correct solution might be to not directly go against the user, but against the other users who attempt to engage with the suspended user. A moderator could ask others to mark the user as "ignored" (which would also disable the entry animation for that user, for that user) and not to engage with them, and kick chat users who do attempt to engage with the suspended user. The hope there would be that the suspended user would realize that their efforts are futile and move on. But what if said user seems to have the time and energy to keep doing what they're doing? I only believe that to be a short-term solution, as it requires moderators to persistently be on patrol, and the entry animation cannot be disabled globally (only by each user).
8685
There are  regarding how users should be treated when they join a chat room:   If you join a chat room, you've signed on to be addressed by random people and bots. It's expected that you may be pinged by anyone or anything. If you join a chat room, you're lurking. Until you talk, you've only dipped your toes into the water.   I'm in camp #2, and the main reason is that joining a chat room is very lightweight. It happens as soon as you click the big link in the room description. I'm not too happy that (provided that you're logged into chat and have enough reputation to talk) clicking the big link makes you appear in a very visible manner into the list of participants in the room.  I wouldn't mind as much if joining a chat room was truly an active decision, if it wasn't something that happened as soon as you wanted to have a look. (Yes, there's a link to the transcript, but it's rather small and hidden.)  Changing the main link to the transcript would solve the problem — browsing the transcript is discreet. However, I don't think this is an acceptable solution, because it would make actually joining the room — a common action — too much work.  What I propose instead is the following:   When you click on the main link in a room description, the display is similar to what it is now when you don't have the reputation to participate in the room (or aren't logged in at all). You get to see messages appearing in real time, and the screen layout is the same as if you were in the room. The bottom part of the screen should show a message like “click here to participate” (I'm not hung on the wording). If you click, you get to join the room, with your avatar appearing in the participant list. If you start typing, then “send” button and the other buttons appear, and posting a message also joins the room. If you've talked in a room recently, clicking on the main link for that room directly makes you an active participant.   The first click is merely clicking on a link whose text is the room name, which doesn't hint that this is an active, public action, so it doesn't have any effect that's visible to other people. The second click clearly tells the user that he's about to participate, and participating in a chat is by definition public since others may talk to you.  This provides a lightweight way to make joining a chatroom less accidental than it is now. It solves the problem of users being jumped on as soon as they click the link to a chat room: now they won't be jumped on until they deliberately jump in.
37005
Now that we have a shiny new top bar, have there been any changes in plans to make it visible in the chat rooms? The responses in old threads I've found seem to defer or decline the option due to issues which may have been resolved by now, completely side-step the problem, or refer to third-party solutions.     Some third-party solutions and a non-answer that addresses the chat index, but not chat rooms.      Acceptance of the general concept seems unconfirmed. "It has come up before, though, and was deferred. I'll ask around, to see if that has changed..." Based on that same answer, it appears this request was rejected because the suggested refresh rate was too often. The new top bar automatically updates, so this should no longer be an issue.   I'm interested to find out what the current status is with regards to implementing this directly on the SE chatrooms, without the need for client-side plugins or scripts.
75097
It would be nice to have the ability to check in the chat rooms via chat. I personally would use this frequently if available, and I'm sure others out there would as well.
67755
When you click the add a comment button when you don't have enough rep, you get a pop-up saying that you need more rep in able to comment. Except, it is too far away and users might be confused for a while before realizing the pop-up is on the other side of the page:     Clearly, that is very inconvenient for a lot of people, like me. Can we move the pop-up to be right next to the add a comment button?
74893
Chat has many problems.   (Wut? I'm not suspended here!)  I think chat should be redone. The URL is weird, sometimes its chat.stackexchange.com sometimes its chat.SITE.stackexchange.com. Then here its chat.meta.stackexchange.com and the chat profile on other sites is not linked here.  I think we should use one site, and its chat.stackexchange.com. That way, there's no funny suspension issues.  Instead, it should be like chat.stackexchange.com/?site=SITE. Sites like stackoverflow will be just as the name is for SITE, not chat.stackoverflow.com.  Then for the suspension detection thing, it should not check the referrer, otherwise that ^ happens. Instead, it should look at the site for the room and check if the user is trying to chat.  and say "Hey! You're not suspended here! Chat!" or "Sorry, you're suspended. No chatting for you :(". Also, the caching issue with SE 1.0 sites needs to be fixed.  Also, this makes all chat profiles one, not have multiple. Also, based on the site part of the URL, the CSS changes according the the site.  Here's how to get it.   Get a test account suspended. Go to a room like chat.SE.com/rooms/35/the-bridge Click "all rooms" Go to a random room on a different site. You're still suspended and can't chat.   This needs to be so that its not suspended on "chat.SE.com" but it checks on the site for the room. Example: I can't chat in Arqade rooms but I can chat in the charcoal chatbot sandbox room. Otherwise I can only chat on chat.SO.com and chat.meta.SE.com.    Ok if you don't like "redo" then lets go with "change some stuff"
50887
I am new to Stack  Exchange and I think it's very impressive.  One thing bothers me is that because it is so far down the line, I don't think beginners stand a chance of growing.  As time goes on, more and more questions are being answered and therefore if someone asks something with a really basic answer you can just comment. However, beginners can't comment until they have a reputation of 50. The only way they can build up is by answering questions. But if they answer a basic question long winded, they will be voted down because not so much effort was needed or because its already a duplicate and will lose the bit of reputation they have earned.  Can you tell me the future for beginners?
21681
It was nice to discover the option for a room owner to add any user to a room, even if their rep is too low.     ...so I notified the user in question, and as instructed on the next screen, I had them got to chat.stackoverflow.com so that I'd be able to add them.    ...but when they did their part, and I did my part, I got the message:    Obviously both frustrated, the user's next logical question was:  "So I just have ask a couple questions and get someone to upvote them, right?"    Needless to say, we don't want to encourage new users to post questions for the sole purpose of bypassing a frustrating, misdocumented rule.  I realize this will likely quickly get closed since it has at least one  - which hasn't been touched in 5½ years.  However it would be nice if the issue was revisited:  Ideally, it would be cool if RO's did have the option of deciding who had access to the room they "own", but short of that, is it possible to remove the 6 "misleading" words from that page?
106076
Let's see if anyone can answer this in under 4 seconds. I know a notification is sent by using @user in a comment, but what about questions and answers?  I was going to make a fake user and message myself to try it, but I figured a question is the more acceptable way to find out the answer.
36226
Low-rep users can't leave comments. This leads to many users   While the rationale behind this limitation is understandable, seen from the outside, it looks  inane and bureaucratic. New users often have useful information to bring to the table. That information is often enough destroyed through deletion,  or has to be manually converted to a comment by a moderator.  How about, experimentally for a month or so, removing the limitation, allowing comments from (registered) new users, and countering the threat of garbage comments with    A comment review queue for low-rep users' comments A lowered flagging threshold for low-rep users' comments (say, 2 flags instead of 3 or whatever is required right now)   After all, features like  show that there's value to be gained from the input of the countless visitors who end up on Stack Overflow through Google, but are never going to become active members of the community. So why not use it?