Home

Why is new "include chat history" only applicable to conversations with 3+ participants?

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-158836%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EWhy%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participants%3F%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-158836%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHi%2C%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EIt%20seems%20we%20are%20only%20prompted%20with%20the%20option%20to%20include%20some%20or%20all%20chat%20history%20when%20adding%20someone%20to%20a%20chat%20already%20containing%203%2B%20participants.%20It%20doesn't%20seem%20to%20work%20when%20adding%20a%203rd%20to%20a%20private%201%3A1%20chat.%20Why%20draw%20the%20line%20there%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-LABS%20id%3D%22lingo-labs-158836%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3EChat%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3EMicrosoft%20Teams%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3C%2FLINGO-LABS%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-307717%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-307717%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3ENot%20much%20but%20it's%20something%3A%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fsupport.office.com%2Fen-us%2Farticle%2Fstart-a-chat-in-teams-0c71b32b-c050-4930-a887-5afbe742b3d8%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Fsupport.office.com%2Fen-us%2Farticle%2Fstart-a-chat-in-teams-0c71b32b-c050-4930-a887-5afbe742b3d8%3C%2FA%3E%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-275501%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-275501%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EIs%20there%20somewhere%20a%20place%20with%20official%20documentation%20on%20how%20this%20is%20supposed%20to%20work%3F%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-159577%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-159577%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CBLOCKQUOTE%3E%3CHR%20%2F%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F52737%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Ben%20Donaldson%3C%2FA%3E%20wrote%3A%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CP%3EI've%20been%20in%20that%20position%20plenty%20of%20times%20on%20Skype%2C%20which%20is%20why%20I%20said%20I'm%20very%20conscious%20of%20how%20debatable%20it%20is.%26nbsp%3B%20The%20difference%20though%20between%20skype%20and%20Teams%20is%20your%201%3A1%20chat%20is%20persistent%20in%20Teams%20and%20will%20have%20EVERYTHING%20you've%20ever%20talked%20about%20with%20that%20person......%20consider%20that.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EI%20talk%20to%20user%20A%20every%20day%20for%20a%20year.%20Then%20one%20day%20I%20need%20to%20loop%26nbsp%3Buser%20B%20in%20on%20a%201%3A1%20I'm%20having%20with%20user%20A.%20You're%20suggesting%20that%20its%20ok%20for%20user%20B%20to%20see%20everything%20I%20ever%20talked%20about%20with%20user%20A%20for%20the%20entire%20year%3F%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3ETo%20do%20what%20you're%20asking%20you'd%20also%20need%20to%20be%20able%20to%20filter%20how%20much%20of%20the%20history%20you%20want%20to%20share%20with%20the%20person%20you%20loop%20in.%20That's%20why%20I%20think%20this%20is%20privacy%20related.%20I%20think%20that's%20why%20it%20didn't%20drop%20with%20the%20same%20time%20as%20groups.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThoughts%20from%20the%20community%20btw%2C%20being%20a%20community%20driven%20discussion%20forum%20and%20all...%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EKind%20regards%3CBR%20%2F%3EBen%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CHR%20%2F%3E%3C%2FBLOCKQUOTE%3E%0A%3CP%3EI'm%20suggesting%20I'm%20an%20adult%20that%20can%20decide%26nbsp%3Bwhether%20to%20include%20the%20history%20or%20not.%20The%20new%20option%20already%20allows%20us%20to%20choose%20how%20much%20history%20to%20include%20instead%20of%20forcing%20a%20binary%20decision.%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-159549%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-159549%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EI've%20been%20in%20that%20position%20plenty%20of%20times%20on%20Skype%2C%20which%20is%20why%20I%20said%20I'm%20very%20conscious%20of%20how%20debatable%20it%20is.%26nbsp%3B%20The%20difference%20though%20between%20skype%20and%20Teams%20is%20your%201%3A1%20chat%20is%20persistent%20in%20Teams%20and%20will%20have%20EVERYTHING%20you've%20ever%20talked%20about%20with%20that%20person......%20consider%20that.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EI%20talk%20to%20user%20A%20every%20day%20for%20a%20year.%20Then%20one%20day%20I%20need%20to%20loop%26nbsp%3Buser%20B%20in%20on%20a%201%3A1%20I'm%20having%20with%20user%20A.%20You're%20suggesting%20that%20its%20ok%20for%20user%20B%20to%20see%20everything%20I%20ever%20talked%20about%20with%20user%20A%20for%20the%20entire%20year%3F%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3ETo%20do%20what%20you're%20asking%20you'd%20also%20need%20to%20be%20able%20to%20filter%20how%20much%20of%20the%20history%20you%20want%20to%20share%20with%20the%20person%20you%20loop%20in.%20That's%20why%20I%20think%20this%20is%20privacy%20related.%20I%20think%20that's%20why%20it%20didn't%20drop%20with%20the%20same%20time%20as%20groups.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThoughts%20from%20the%20community%20btw%2C%20being%20a%20community%20driven%20discussion%20forum%20and%20all...%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EKind%20regards%3CBR%20%2F%3EBen%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-159431%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-159431%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHave%20you%20never%20been%20in%20a%201%3A1%20professional%26nbsp%3Bdiscussion%20to%20which%20you%20wanted%20to%20add%20a%20third%3F%20We%20can't%20start%20it%20as%20a%20group%26nbsp%3Bdiscussion%20if%20we%20don't%20know%20we'll%20want%20to%20loop%20that%20person%20in.%26nbsp%3BIt's%20an%20optional%20feature%20yet%20they%26nbsp%3Bforced%20the%20decision.%20A%20good%20design%20would%20be%20making%20it%20default%20to%20no%20history%20for%201%3A1%20so%20someone%20would%20have%20to%20explicitly%20decide%20otherwise.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThoughts%20from%20whom%3F%20I%20came%20here%20wanting%20to%20know%20Microsoft's.%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-159251%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-159251%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EThis%20is%20absolutely%20related%20to%201%3A1%20expectations%20around%20privacy%20and%20intimacy.%20This%20feature%20is%20not%20dependant%20on%20the%20number%20of%20participants%2C%20but%20the%20context%20of%20the%20conversation%3B%20You're%20either%20chatting%20in%20a%20Team%20%2F%20Group%26nbsp%3Bwhere%20there%20is%20already%20an%20understanding%20that%20anything%20you%20publish%20will%20be%20viewable%20by%20everyone%20in%20the%20Team%2C%20and%20potentially%20more%20people%20as%20they're%20added%20OR%20you're%20chatting%20in%20a%201%3A1%20session%20outside%20any%20Team%20%2F%20Group%26nbsp%3Bwhere%20there%20is%20an%20understanding%20that%20the%20conversation%20is%20private%20and%20restricted%20to%20just%20the%20two%20parties.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EMy%20point%20is%20this%3B%26nbsp%3Bin%20a%201%3A1%20chat%20between%20two%20people%2C%20neither%20one%20has%20the%20right%26nbsp%3Bto%20say%20whether%20a%20third%20person%20should%20have%20the%20right%20to%20read%26nbsp%3Bwhat's%20been%20said%20by%20the%20other%2C%20because%20that%20conversation%20was%20considered%20to%20be%20private...%20through%20the%20expectation%20of%20what%20a%201%3A1%20chat%20is.%20Granted%2C%20in%20some%20scenarios%20both%20users%20might%20find%20that%20useful%20because%20the%20conversation%20might%20go%20somewhere%20they%20didn't%20expect%2C%20and%20they%20need%20to%20pull%20someone%20in.%20But%20if%20the%20conversation%20might%20go%20there%20then%20start%20the%20chat%20as%20group%20%2F%20meeting%20rather%20than%201%3A1.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EI%20think%20they've%20got%20this%20right%20personally%2C%20because%20of%20the%20expectation%20around%20what%20a%201%3A1%20chat%20should%20be...%20private.%20Very%20conscious%20that%20it's%20completely%20debatable%2C%20and%20already%20thought%20about%20various%20scenarios%2C%20but%20I'm%20happy%20with%20how%20it%20is%20personally.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EThe%20official%20content%20%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FrbwXfW%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22nofollow%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ehere%3C%2FA%3E%20uses%20the%20word%20'currently'%20so%20I%20guess%20there%20may%20already%20be%20plans%20or%20potential%20to%20change%20how%20it%20behaves.%20Thoughts%3F%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3EKind%20regards%3CBR%20%2F%3EBen%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-159235%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-159235%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EHence%20my%20question%20of%20%E2%80%9CWhy%20draw%20the%20line%20there%3F%E2%80%9D%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-159233%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-159233%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EThis%20feature%20is%20appliciable%20for%20group%20chats%20in%20Teams%2C%20not%201%3A1%20chat.%20And%20this%20option%20is%20shown%20with%20more%20than%201%20user%20in%20the%20chat.%20If%20it%20is%20not%20shown%20for%20group%20chat%20with%202%20users%2C%20please%20share%20the%20screen-shot%20or%20raise%20the%20support%20ticket%20from%20Teams%20itself%20using%20Feedback%20option.%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-158848%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-158848%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3EThe%20question%20is%20related%20to%20%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fmicrosoftteams.uservoice.com%2Fforums%2F555103-public%2Fsuggestions%2F16911559-include-previous-chat-history-when-adding-new-peop%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ethis%20UserVoice%20topic%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3Bwhich%20has%20already%20been%20closed%20for%20comments%20by%26nbsp%3B%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F92422%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Warren%20Wright%3C%2FA%3E%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-583527%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Why%20is%20new%20%22include%20chat%20history%22%20only%20applicable%20to%20conversations%20with%203%2B%20participant%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-583527%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fuser%2Fviewprofilepage%2Fuser-id%2F64492%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3E%40Ben%20Donaldson%3C%2FA%3E%26nbsp%3Binteresting%20point%20about%20the%20%22everything%20you've%20ever%20talked%20about%22%20side%20effect.%20Coming%20from%20an%20internal%20IM%20app%20that%20was%20thread-based%20and%20had%20this%20feature%2C%20the%20MS%20Teams%20distinction%20between%201%3A1%20conversations%20and%20%22group%20messages%22%20felt%20stupid%20to%20me%2C%20but%20then%20I%20realized%20private%201%3A1%20messages%20were%20always%20treated%20as%20a%20separate%20thread%2C%20and%20we'd%20start%20separate%20conversations%20that%20might%20end%20up%20looping%20other%20people%20in.%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3CP%3EI%20think%20this%20would%20be%20a%20better%20way%20of%20solving%20this%20problem--allow%20a%20user%20to%20have%20multiple%20threads%20with%20the%20same%20person--that%20way%20you're%20not%20limited%20to%20one%20conversation%20with%20a%20given%20person%20and%20an%20all-or-nothing%20approach%20to%20sharing%20history%20when%20adding%20a%20third%20person%20to%20a%20given%20conversation.%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
John Shkolnik
Contributor

Hi,

 

It seems we are only prompted with the option to include some or all chat history when adding someone to a chat already containing 3+ participants. It doesn't seem to work when adding a 3rd to a private 1:1 chat. Why draw the line there?

10 Replies

The question is related to this UserVoice topic which has already been closed for comments by @Warren Wright

This feature is appliciable for group chats in Teams, not 1:1 chat. And this option is shown with more than 1 user in the chat. If it is not shown for group chat with 2 users, please share the screen-shot or raise the support ticket from Teams itself using Feedback option.

Hence my question of “Why draw the line there?”

This is absolutely related to 1:1 expectations around privacy and intimacy. This feature is not dependant on the number of participants, but the context of the conversation; You're either chatting in a Team / Group where there is already an understanding that anything you publish will be viewable by everyone in the Team, and potentially more people as they're added OR you're chatting in a 1:1 session outside any Team / Group where there is an understanding that the conversation is private and restricted to just the two parties.

 

My point is this; in a 1:1 chat between two people, neither one has the right to say whether a third person should have the right to read what's been said by the other, because that conversation was considered to be private... through the expectation of what a 1:1 chat is. Granted, in some scenarios both users might find that useful because the conversation might go somewhere they didn't expect, and they need to pull someone in. But if the conversation might go there then start the chat as group / meeting rather than 1:1.

 

I think they've got this right personally, because of the expectation around what a 1:1 chat should be... private. Very conscious that it's completely debatable, and already thought about various scenarios, but I'm happy with how it is personally.

 

The official content here uses the word 'currently' so I guess there may already be plans or potential to change how it behaves. Thoughts?

 

Kind regards
Ben

Have you never been in a 1:1 professional discussion to which you wanted to add a third? We can't start it as a group discussion if we don't know we'll want to loop that person in. It's an optional feature yet they forced the decision. A good design would be making it default to no history for 1:1 so someone would have to explicitly decide otherwise.

 

Thoughts from whom? I came here wanting to know Microsoft's.

I've been in that position plenty of times on Skype, which is why I said I'm very conscious of how debatable it is.  The difference though between skype and Teams is your 1:1 chat is persistent in Teams and will have EVERYTHING you've ever talked about with that person...... consider that.

 

I talk to user A every day for a year. Then one day I need to loop user B in on a 1:1 I'm having with user A. You're suggesting that its ok for user B to see everything I ever talked about with user A for the entire year?

 

To do what you're asking you'd also need to be able to filter how much of the history you want to share with the person you loop in. That's why I think this is privacy related. I think that's why it didn't drop with the same time as groups.

 

Thoughts from the community btw, being a community driven discussion forum and all... 

 

Kind regards
Ben


@Ben Donaldson wrote:

I've been in that position plenty of times on Skype, which is why I said I'm very conscious of how debatable it is.  The difference though between skype and Teams is your 1:1 chat is persistent in Teams and will have EVERYTHING you've ever talked about with that person...... consider that.

 

I talk to user A every day for a year. Then one day I need to loop user B in on a 1:1 I'm having with user A. You're suggesting that its ok for user B to see everything I ever talked about with user A for the entire year?

 

To do what you're asking you'd also need to be able to filter how much of the history you want to share with the person you loop in. That's why I think this is privacy related. I think that's why it didn't drop with the same time as groups.

 

Thoughts from the community btw, being a community driven discussion forum and all... 

 

Kind regards
Ben


I'm suggesting I'm an adult that can decide whether to include the history or not. The new option already allows us to choose how much history to include instead of forcing a binary decision.

Is there somewhere a place with official documentation on how this is supposed to work?

@Ben Donaldson interesting point about the "everything you've ever talked about" side effect. Coming from an internal IM app that was thread-based and had this feature, the MS Teams distinction between 1:1 conversations and "group messages" felt stupid to me, but then I realized private 1:1 messages were always treated as a separate thread, and we'd start separate conversations that might end up looping other people in.

 

I think this would be a better way of solving this problem--allow a user to have multiple threads with the same person--that way you're not limited to one conversation with a given person and an all-or-nothing approach to sharing history when adding a third person to a given conversation.

Related Conversations
Tabs and Dark Mode
cjc2112 in Discussions on
16 Replies
flashing a white screen while open new tab
cntvertex in Discussions on
11 Replies
How to Prevent Teams from Auto-Launch
chenrylee in Microsoft Teams on
28 Replies
Early preview of Microsoft Edge group policies
Sean Lyndersay in Discussions on
65 Replies