"Interesting Tables" shouldn't counteract invisible login.

[mgoetze]

Due to another thread here I checked out the "Interesting Tables" feature a couple of times. I note that it showed me one table that certainly would not have counted as interesting except for the fact that someone on my friends list was playing there. However, that person was not listed in my "Who's Online" tab - presumably because they had chosen to log in invisibly. In my opinion, BBO should respect the invisible login option's request for privacy and not expose people using it by listing their tables as interesting.

 

(I don't know if it also works like this when you are just following someone rather than being a mutual friend but I suspect it does.)

[phoenix214]

Going to bandwagon - but there are more issues with the invisible feature on bbo, when you can tell that your friends are online although they log in as invisible

[barmar]

The "invisible" feature is deliberately very simple. It's not meant for complete privacy, just to avoid advertising that you're online. So it keeps you from seeing them in the "Who's Online" sidebar, and you don't get notified when they login. But you can find them with "Find member", and you can see them if you look at a table where they're playing.

 

Whether they should make a table "interesting" is an interesting borderline case, though. You can still see them if you scroll through the full table list.

 

BTW, if the host of the table is invisible, the table won't be shown in table lists, and won't be found by List Interesting Tables.

[gwnn]

When was the last time you said "Thank you for the criticism, I think you are making a good point. I will have to think about it and talk to my colleagues whether it is worth implementing." Instead of "this is not a bug, it's a feature" or "it's such a small issue, why do you care?"

[barmar]

Thank you, we're discussing this.