The first time I used a non-threaded, jump-between-comments forum was on another site. it was confusing and intimidating to me, but once I started using it, I greatly preferred it.
this is a forum for a website for people who think a bit differently. Every member of the editorial staff are outspoken in their love for utility and good design. They can also code, and a majority of the sites users do, too (for the record, I don’t code.) Calling them the “techy ingroup” is missing the point. This is a site on the internet, in large part about the internet. The internet is links. your mind is links. this forum maximizes the potential of linking conversation(s) in different ways. It sacrifices some little traditions in trade for increased utility. A lot of drivers prefer a stick, but learning is always intimidating. (yes, I made a computer/car analogy. sorry.)
but… it shifts back to where you were when you click the little arrow.
i get that it’s jarring to you, but you do understand why it is used, right? I can explain it, or any other questions, if you want.
also, you can practice using Discourse in the sandbox, too.
No, this system is designed to weed out dumb guys, people with poor design sense, and anyone who finds disruptive trolls disruptive. I’m about done myself. Seems like what the owners want.
I guess it weeded me out. I’m just not sponge-worthy.
I still love the content on this site though. I miss the banter with people on the same page as the stories. You new youngn’s are too smart. I wish I was not so crotchedy…
I’ll stick to my Cricket phone and Netscape browser now. But, still read every line of the front page. BB rocks. Discourse, IMO, is on the same track as Spoke and Friendster.
You do realise, by the time you change anything, everyone will have got used to the clunky implementation, and will, predictably, go acka and moan again, right? Though what you’ve touched upon sounds very interesting. Discourse is obviously something extremely powerful, but it’s got some sharp edges you can catch your shins on still. But hey.
Well, it kind of made it stand out that folks’ arguments got narrower & narrower… Discourse is less of a fanny-on to check who’s been saying what in older convos, because of the bbs nature, I’ll give it that.
First off, I want to start off by thanking Jeff Atwood (@codinghorror) and the Discourse team for working on open source forum software. I really enjoy stackoverflow and I’m sure with time, Discourse’s kinks will be worked out.
I’ve been long time lurker on boingboing and I just wanted to add my 2 cents on what things can be improved. People are making arguments for Threaded vs Single Thread, when in reality I think they’re arguing about context or lack thereof (what was I reading, and what I’m responding to) vs scannability/relevance (is this post important? is it a pun or some trolls arguing with each other?).
Retaining context, is traditionally solved by using threads, or at least 1-level threading. While the latter can usually be alleviated with a reputation system and self moderation by the community (upvoting) and flagging for moderation rather than downvoting to avoid trollish behavior. (No downvoting also since, in a lot of cases there isn’t a right or wrong answer when talking about non-science related items).
Here’s an example of what I’m seeing when I’m reading this thread. It’s very pretty, but I lose context of what I’m reading about. Sometimes I click to see replies, and then am confused when I reread the post further down the line. The time stamp should be sufficient enough to let me know when that post occurred. Since they’re responding to someone, it just clutters up the rest of the thread when it shows up as a new thought. It shouldn’t be as important as a new idea responding to the main topic. They may have started a tangent conversation talking about how unicorns tears are the best, when the original thread was about tribbles in space.
I think the Kinja commenting system that Gawker uses, may have a few insights in keeping a conversation flat, and yet contained. It isn’t the best UI but I think they have a lot of things going for them. For starters I can quickly scan each sub topic and get a general feel for what that conversation is about. I may only see the first three responses, but usually that’s enough. If I’m interested I can expand the conversation. Also, even though they only support 1-level threading you can respond to other people than the thread starter. Chronological order generally only matters most in the context of a single thread, and when you have >100 posts it just becomes a mess when you try to retain it for everything. Good content can come before or after or in the middle of a huge comment thread, so letting good content bubble up at the cost of order isn’t that big of a deal.
To give you another example, think of how good content is bubbled up in stackoverflow. Upvotes by the masses, and what the question author thinks is correct. Does time matter that much in stackoverflow? Should time matter that much in a forum that is being used as a commenting system?
But for the love of god PLEASE don’t start using the bizzarro two column comment thing thing they have going on there. In whose mind does that make sense?
Two columns wasn’t the point (I also find it slightly weird). It was about how Kinja keeps 1-level deep conversations separate from other thoughts. You can scan, and then expand conversations if you find them interesting.
Oh I totally get that, I was just saying that the 2 column thing is like the opposite of what makes sense to me, thus I expect to see @codinghorror implement is any day now.
But seriously the two column design is really really horrible. Kinja is awful, though I have seen it in single column mode (on iPad?) and it’s not bad there.
If you are seeing disruptive driving trollies, please flag it.
I think proper chronological order is absolutely essential to understanding any conversation. Re-ordering people’s statements by vote would be incredibly disruptive to a conversation.
I have to say I really enjoyed reading this message thread.
The last time I did any ‘serious’ coding was when OS/2 Version 3 and Windows 95 were new operating systems—and I wasn’t particularly good at it, back then—but one thing I do recall is that some BBSes had options to view messages both in a threaded and non-threaded context. And that feature seems to have replicated across web-based mailing list archives and even other web forums in which I participate.
Now, my personal preference is for non-threaded, because I typically like to read everything in a conversation, but I certainly understand that message threading is a very individualized experience, like what type of keyboard or mouse a person likes.
So, maybe, just maybe, because the Discourse software is open source, someone can contribute code to add a threaded/non-threaded view option, with the view control available at a user level. That way, everyone’s happy. Or, at least, happier.
Personally, as far as annoyance level goes, I feel far more constrained by not being able to sign my posts
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky
like I do every single other place on the web, because that’s how I’ve been doing things since back in the dark ages of BBSes, but by participating in this community, I did agree to abide by its rules, so there you have it.
True. By comparison, though, reordering people’s statements by threads would provide an alternate means of understanding a conversation that keeps related posts in chronological order.
Only it makes them pointless, as you have to try and figure out the things they’re replying to without being able to see 'em half the time. Please. No Kinja-ing.
Discourse is less of a fanny-on to check who’s been saying what in older convos, because of the bbs nature, I’ll give it that.
