Threads

[the Langolier]

Currently, the threaded view will show you the original post (or a chosen response) with the tree showing all responses underneath. This means you can only view one post at a time, as opposed to the linear option which shows all posts in timestamp order.

I was wondering if it was possible to display all the posts below the tree so you can see the original post, the tree, and finally all responses at the bottom. Of course, the lower view would be the same as the linear view. One thing about the old forums with the threads was that it wasn't alwasy easy to find the newest posts to a topic, especially when there were a few replies to different posts within a topic. The nice thing about the linear view is that all new messages appear at the bottom. I think it were set up as described above, you could get the best of both worlds. You could quickly spot the new posts at the bottom of the linear view, and yet you still have the tree higher on the page to let you know which is a response to what. I do not know if this an option, but in theory it shouldn't be very difficult at all (again, the below the tree would simply be a linear view based on timestamp, not truely threaded as in the previous forum).

[Kevin]

In case you haven't seen it check my reply in this thread: http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/index.p...p=1478&linear=0

What you suggested is actually one of the first things that I am going to attempt to do, just to insure that I am in fact following all the code correctly. It may or may not work correctly though. I also want to make sure it doesn't break the thread collapse hack that is currently in place to, as that does so fun stuff with the current settings.

It might be possible, assuming I get the stuff to work that I want, that your suggestion (the tree with the linear view below) and the tree with the posts actually shown as threaded can both be options. Like I said though, my progress will be slow.

I am currently at the stage of having another board up and running with the current threaded view hack installed, and commenting some of the current code to make sure that I actually edit all the files required. When that is done, I can start testing changes. If the changes work, I will open up the test boards for suggestions and work some of those in.

I am also looking at fixing the post title when you quote in threaded view, but that is lower priority. I think I know where the issue is though from when I was installing the threaded view hack.

I figure this thread might be a better place to stick progress reports than one about smilies. So, that is why I linked the other one. If I need any help, I'll ask. Right now I will probably ignore any volunteers, unless you are a PHP and SQL wizard. In which case I would probably be the one helping you and not the other way around. :)

[Kevin]

I have a question about how we want this implemented.

Currently what I have going (sans any sort of formatting, which is more important than you might think) is for it to show the post you clicked on at the top like normal, show the titles and authors of any direct replies as links (like it does normally). Then it shows the tree as links with the ability to collapse and expand like we have now, then it shows the title and the body of every post in threaded order. There are still some kinks I need to work out that I just haven't had time to get to, but my worry is that using the threaded view doesn't pay any attention to the number of pages in a topic. It shows every post in the thread (in threaded order). So, my question is, is this going to be a problem? We get some really large threads on this board and having it load every post in a 5 page thread could be an issue. However I thought this is how the old forums handled it if you used the view all option. Regardless of the number of "pages" you saw every post in the thread when you viewed all. Is that correct, do we really care as long as threaded view users can see all the posts without having to click each one? Let me know your thoughts.

As to any questions of "can I see what you have done so far". Right now, no. The server I am on does have limited bandwidth, and I am not actually paying for any of it, so I don't want to say, hey come here and look at this, and eat up the bandwidth. I also know what a lot of the current problems are, and how to fix some of them, I just haven't had the time to get all of it done, so some of the feedback would be wasted. Hopefully in a few weeks I'll be to a point where I can actually demo some stuff and get some feedback on it. I also need to do a bit more documentation on what I did to insure that it can be replicated. :)

I just wanted some feedback on a few of the implementation steps and to give the Lurkers who are waiting and hoping an update. But again, I am slow, crotchety and prefer to poke at stuff like this alone most of the time, so don't pin a lot of hopes up just yet.

[Bolty]

Yes, in the old forums, the "view all" option would show the entire thread. But there was also the option to only do one post at a time if the thread was huge. Something to think about, an either 1 or ALL option.

Right now I'm still in "incredibly impressed" mode that you are this far along in this short a period of time. You'll make a lot of Lurkers happy if you pull this off.

-Bolty

[Kevin]

Yes, in the old forums, the "view all" option would show the entire thread.  But there was also the option to only do one post at a time if the thread was huge.  Something to think about, an either 1 or ALL option.

Right now I'm still in "incredibly impressed" mode that you are this far along in this short a period of time.  You'll make a lot of Lurkers happy if you pull this off.

-Bolty

Thanks, I'm trying. :)

I was going to try and have it so that you can view just like now, and then have the use linear and "view all threaded" option. As a note, currently if you collapse part of the thread it will not display the text on those messages, which is nice as well.

But I was hoping that I would get an answer like you gave because that looks like the easier option. :)