Let's Get Rid Of Some Confusion

[--Pete]

Hi,

There are three reply buttons and as near as I can tell two of them (the ones at the top or bottom) put the reply at the end. That is, not threaded at all. This, as usual, leads to a huge amount of confusion of just who is responding to what. The other button (the one in the middle) seems to reply to the post that is opened. This give a nice threaded forum where one can actually keep track of what conversations are what.

I'd suggest that one or the other of these be eliminated. If the forum is to be non-threaded, so be it. If it is to be threaded, ditto. But this mishmash is close to the worse of all worlds.

--Pete

[Taeme]

I was gonna say, I never have any damn idea who you're talking to. :P

[Bolty]

Pete,

On the one hand, you have some confusion as to which is the "right" reply button. On the other hand, you have the convenience of being able to reply to the original topic post right away, even if you're buried in page 9 of a topic view.

So I'm still debating. Anyone else feel strongly one way or the other about this? I know someone else asked about "how to reply to original post when reading deep in a thread." Ok, it's not that hard - going back to the original page of the thread - but learning which reply button to use isn't that hard either. I'm stuck.

If I get a lot of opinions one way or the other, I'll take action or no depending. :unsure:

-Bolty

[Taeme]

I absolutely prefer non-threaded view, hands down, no doubt about. Picking through threads I have always found clumsy and frankly, I would never ever read large threads on the lounge primary because of threaded view. Too much of a mess.

However I would remove the quote button. All it does is smack the full post at the front of yours, at least as far as I can tell so far.

[WarBlade]

Another proponent of non-threaded forums here. I always found it hard working out where threads were going on the old lounge board with new replies getting added into the middle of sub-threads making sub-sub-threads and ideas branching off in all manner of directions. Linear is so much more straight forward. New post at the bottom. New post at the bottom. New . . . *repeat*. :D

[DeeBye]

Linear is so much more straight forward. New post at the bottom. New post at the bottom. New . . . *repeat*.

The only problem with a linear forum is with forum-goers who do not quote the text that they are specifically replying to.

I've seen some nasty linear forums where the last post consisted of "I agree", and I couldn't make out which post to which (s)he was agreeing with. Linear forums are cleaner, but they do have their drawbacks.

Personally, I dislike this half-assed threaded forum. I've taken to viewing this new forum in a non-threaded format instead. As long as posters quote the relevant text to which they are replying, I am finding it easy to adapt to this new forum format.

[--Pete]

Hi,

In a threaded forum, one can follow the flow of ideas. When a complex topic is being discussed, it is often the case that a "sub-discussion" of part of the topic takes place. This is what forms a sub-thread. If one wants to see where the logic leading to the last post in the sub-thread came from, one needs but look at the threads back to the last branch point.

In a non-threaded forum, all the ideas are thrown into one sack. Half the time one cannot even tell what a post is in reply to. Even if there is a quote, unless one remembers all the posts in the thread and what was said in all, reviewing the chain of logic is nearly impossible.

Furthermore, threaded subjects are easier to "filter". One learns to avoid certain posters and their discussion or to follow that of others. Since the separate discussions are taking place on separate sub-threads, it becomes an easy matter to figure out what is and what isn't worth spending time on. The structure of the thread, again, mirrors the structure of the discussion. In non-threaded forums, one has to read nearly all the posts. Sure I can avoid the posts by BigIdiot. But unless I read all the replies, I don't know if a given reply is to BigIdiot or InterestingPoster. Given that this forum doesn't have a "View All" option, that makes it even harder to put up with unthreaded fora.

Threaded fora are more useful for deep discussions where branches in the thinking can and do take place. Non-threaded fora are more useful for "I think LotR ROXX" type threads. Even in threaded fora, simple topics tend to not generate sub-threads. So, in non-threaded fora, all ideas have to fit in a two-bit sack. In a threaded forum, ideas can be expressed in structures more natural to the expression of the ideas.

So much for that. I know that I, for one, do not like non-threaded forums. They usually have little intellectual appeal. Whether this is a result or a cause of the non-threaded structure, I don't know. Because of the history of the Lounge, I would give it a try for a while even if it were non threaded (or even in the bastardized state it is in). But, already, the question of "what is that in reply to?" has come up a few times. With incomplete ideas posted as unclear reply to some unknown post, the whole concept of rational discussion goes out the door. And when it does, I'll follow it.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

I agree with Pete.

Now how would that have flowed if this were one of those huge threads where Pete had inserted commentary at several levels of the discussion?

I like threaded viewing. I am finding that the half'n'half system we currently have is a bit frustrating, but I still would rather look at the threaded view first. Call me elitist, but there really are people whose views on virtually any topic are not worth my energy to read.

Further, when a discussion has branched off in all directions, sometimes it can and will make for enormous confusion when trying to follow one particular sub-thread, like one of those community hall meetings where everyone is talking at once.

I have already started to adapt, however. I view the post summaries first in the threaded method. If it is a fairly straightforward discussion, I shift to the linear method and read them all. If it has already branched out, I read the responses one by one in the threaded method.

[Jarulf]

*hopes he pressed the correct reply button*

I must say I agree with Pete here. Some points of the "confusion" of a thread system was brought forward but I think that would only happen if one take a threaded topic and view it in a inear way, that is, with the posts not in post order but in the order they would apear in athreaded topic. Indeed, that would be horrible since one would have to reread the whole topic to find new messages. That is why threaded topics indent posts and also why one have that nice "tree" at the start (or as here at bottom which is worse) so that one get a nice overview of the topic and can instantly see were new posts have appeared and if they are in a branch one might be interested in.

I personally read only perhaps 1/10 of all threads here. And of those in many I read just a part of the posts, the other are usually of no interest, side discussions going off on topics I don't care about. Threads give me a very convenient way to get an overview of that.

In a linear system on the other hand, I have to go through and look at EVERY single post in a thread I might be interested in even if 90% of them have branched of into a subtopic totally uninteresting. I never know if any of the posts in the 4 following pages (in a big thread) might be in reply to something interesting, for example my own post at the start. The only possible time linear might be good as far as I can tell, is if you are one of those that want to read (and will read) every single post ever posted, then it might possibly be convenient.

The ideal, is of course being able to view the forum in two ways, fully and correctly threaded, and fully and correctly linear. As far as I can tell this forum only have the last possibility, no? And for threads, you can at most get the tree. :(

[Quark]

The only reason I use linear is if it's a fairly straightforward post - like the DnD one.

Other than that I'd rather click through one-by-one instead of the mass confusion that is linear.

I still prefer this limited threaded to the linear view.

[Kevin]

I have to agree with Pete as well.

I am even learning to live with all the clicking that this threaded view makes you do (and using my page down key a whole lot more).

I am still working on having not only the tree but a view of all the posts, indentation is being a little silly right now, and there is more code that needs to be changed than I first thought and I have less time to work on it than I thought, I am starting to think I won't be able to do it.

I haven't looked at the linear view since my first visit to the boards, even when reading the threads. There are a few non threaded forums I go to where there is a lot of discussion, and you have to do so much quoting and embedded quotes that it just gets silly, and I wish it was threaded.

The linear view is just so telnet citadel based BBS to me, the web display is more powerful, and the power should be used to assist in the conveyance of ideas, not just in eye candy. Too bad all the web BBS coders seem to have never seen threads before so they don't even try to implement them. Really the only real problem with the DC boards was that it didn't have an actual database back-end. Navigation was still pretty simple, it just lacked some of the candy and shortcuts of this.

[Taeme]

In a threaded forum, one can follow the flow of ideas.

It also increases the number of posts people make, dividing up their responses to the various sub-topics and responding to opinions, or you end up with replies to one topic within another sub-thread.

Saying threaded forums are some how innately more intelligent is a charming line of reasoning. I, however, would state that threaded forums get people away from the idea of posting on a message board and more towards having private little conversations, and going off topic. With linear forums topics always revert back to the original at hand, and people are not encouraged to use the message board as a public IM service.

But unless I read all the replies, I don't know if a given reply is to BigIdiot or InterestingPoster.

So replying to a bad poster immediately destroys whether or not someone reply is worth reading? In threaded forums, time and time again I've seen a BigIdiot break into a sub-topic and then draw all attention away from the other replies in that sub-thread with his big loud mouth. Again, it works both ways.

Threaded fora are more useful for deep discussions where branches in the thinking can and do take place. Non-threaded fora are more useful for "I think LotR ROXX" type threads.

The threads are made by the people who post in them. Saying the intelligence is a matter of the forum style is, like I said, a charming line of reasoning.

But, already, the question of "what is that in reply to?" has come up a few times.

That's just a matter of replying with quotes or in proper form, rather than dumping an uncomplete fragment
onto the table. That happens in either form because of the dual forms, though I imagine using the reply button works even if you're not using threaded view (let's find out). And it still happened before, there's always people who don't understand threaded view anyways.

Like I said, charming bit of reasoning there, Pete.

[--Pete]

Hi,

First, if it weren't for threading, I'd have to quote half of what you said. It was boring enough to read the first time, so threading saves us all some pain. ;)

Now, you go off on "Saying threaded forums are some how innately more intelligent is a charming line of reasoning." You like that so much, you felt you needed to say it twice.

However, I never said that. What I did say was "Threaded fora are more useful for deep discussions where branches in the thinking can and do take place. " and that was all that I said in any "line of reasoning". And I stick to that. If a topic has any depth to it, then it *will* break up into sub topics. And there will be side discussions. Only if the topic is so simple that it hardly merits discussing will it stay linear (and not even then). Threaded boards help in this division of ideas into topics. You admit as much yourself when you say: "It also increases the number of posts people make, dividing up their responses to the various sub-topics and responding to opinions". Somehow you imply that breaking an idea into its components and examining those components is bad. That may be true in some "religious" forums where ideas may not be questioned, but it seems to be the essence of rational discussion to me.

Now, in the last paragraph of my post, I did state an opinion and an observation. My wording makes it pretty clear that that is what they are, my opinion, my observation. You are welcome to disagree. But don't call it my "bit of reasoning". Not unless you don't know what reasoning is.

Finally, "there's always people who don't understand threaded view anyways." So what? There are people who cannot form a readable sentence. There are people who cannot follow a rational argument. There are people who cannot find . . .

Make a forum for the least common denominator and you make a forum for no one.

--Pete

[Grayloch]

...for all the same reasons everyone else has already pointed out.

-G.

[Bolty]

Um...I was talking about the reply BUTTONS. Somehow this thread went into a discussion of threaded vs non-threaded views. That's not what I was talking about - I was referring to whether or not we should have the large "Add Reply" buttons at the top and bottom of each topic view as well as the "Reply" buttons besides each post.

Pete says no, let's get rid of them because they cause confusion. I say yes, they may, but there's also the convenience of being able to reply to the original thread post immediately when reading deep down in a thread.

-Bolty

[Taeme]

An issue of resolving confusion leading into further confusion?

I would say yes and no. Yes, remove them. No, not completely. Just make them different. One should be "reply to this post" and one should be "reply to this thread".

[Quark]

.. but is obviously a part of the "someone making icons" bid.

[WarBlade]

It's actually not that easy to separate the two issues IMO.

The large reply button at the bottom is only a problem to threaded view users, among whom I have not yet belonged. The small reply button might be an issue for them if they want it to generate their branches, although the quote button should do that just fine and give a clue to the linear viewers as to where the replies are directed.

If I was to vote for ditching anything it would be the small reply button up top.

New Thread and Poll buttons are almost wasted space inside a thread though. :blink:

[kandrathe]

I prefer to use the threaded view. But, I feel I am perhaps the poster child for pressing the wrong reply button lately. :blink: If it were only non-threaded, the efficient way to post would be to address multiple discussions in one post. IMHO, that is an unnatural form of conversation. The threaded view allows one to respond briefly to multiple posts, and not neccesarily need to quote large chunks of text to keep the separate conversations clear.

[Jarulf]

Hmm, looking at the "links" shown on the reply buttons, I just realised that it looks like the small reply button on a post, is identical to the big ones at top and bottom. That sugests it places a post at the "end", no? In reply to the initial post? I always thought that BOTH buttons inside a post was a reply to that specific post,, just with one having quotes and the other not (so you don't have to delete it when you don't want to quote). Seems I mistaken. This is a horrible mess :)

I sugest only reply buttons by each message. Why have any at top or bottom to start with? You reply to a post, no? That meake the topic nicely threaded for those who which so, why those loving the linear mode can continue doing so not bothering that there is in fact a more "advanced" system beneeth :)

The only problem I see is that people might simply read the whole thread in linear mode and then simply press the last posts "reply" when they intend to reply to something different. Oh well, one can't get it all.