New Topic on the share / link dialog?


#1

Continuing the discussion from Jacob Applebaum:

I don’t want to share a posst, I want to respond to it.

There is an overlap in the Venn Diagram, but not much of one.


#2

I don’t understand - so respond to it? It explain - what am I missing?


#3

Eh? This is where “reply as linked topic” from the right gutter went. What’s stupid about it? You are replying with a link to the topic, thus linking them together.

Also @TailOfTruth had some recent comments about this that are better captured here, IMO. :ear:


#4

Who would think to reply to something by clicking a picture of a chain .

At least with the :floppy_disk: := save thang there’s some antique history.

This requires a drill-down to make sense, and no reason to drill-down.

Almost everywhere else, a picture of a chain is used to format a link.


#5

The title of this thread is was hyperbolic and confrontational.

If we were in the same building I would have gone with my initial title, which was much more confrontational.

I see your idea of “you’re linking two threads together” but … it’s weak. It’s not a standard use of either the grahic, or the idea of a reply.

A reply is a link, but it is not generally thought of as a link.


Maybe you could use a picture of a :butt: - because a but is a conjunction, that links two clauses or sentences!

#( ! )


The hover-text doesn’t help:

Just about everywhere, “share (a link)” means to externally share a reference to the post somewhere else – twitter, facebook, sms, whathaveyou. It does not connote “create a related topic within this environment”.


Feedback on vertical timeline
#6

I would like your post to show my recognition and agreement, but I’m out of likes.


#7

4 posts were split to a new topic: Issues with Poll Builder (gear icon in editor)


#8

Well, I beg to differ. The “permalink” :link: icon is fairly well known. We may hedge a bit and call it “share” to appeal to a slighly broader, maybe less Internet-savvy audience, but clearly it is the gimme a link button. That’s what it does. It gimmes you the link.

So the logic of …

  • I need a link to this post
  • Because I want to share it somewhere on the Internet

is, in my opinion, awfully close to …

  • I need a link to this post
  • Because I want to share it in this new topic I’m about to create

I don’t think that’s much of a stretch at all.

(Also note that we decided only incoming internal links are displayed below a post, because we felt that outgoing links are already sort of obvious, being visibly in the post already. We do track both directions, of course. Not sure if you were clear on this @TailOfTruth)


#9

After reading

I got to thinking that the more logical place for the “new topic” option would be after you had clicked reply. By making it a checkbox on that vast field of grey at the top of the reply box users can start to reply, realize halfway through that it works better as a new, linked topic, and make it so without having to abandon what they’ve already written.


#10

It is excessive to show such an incredibly rarely used option at all times in the editor, in our opinion.

There was a proposal to change the arrow at the top left to be a button where you could select reply “type”, which I thought was clever. And that properly puts the uber-rare action behind an ellipsis of some kind.


#11

FTFY. 

How many people actually share links to replies? Other than when they want to reply-as-new-topic?


#12

That’s cool The important part of my thought was opening the reply window and clicking :sparkles:THIS :sparkles:. What this is is far less important.


#13

Uh, 'zat a royal we?


#14

I have no idea what you are referring to


#15

This topic was automatically closed after 247 days. New replies are no longer allowed.