How many posts can digress from a thread’s stated topic before they should be split off?
And is there any intention to show the splits, links, and other “side of the post” information on mobile view? It seems I’ve missed quite a few theads I was following because I use my iPad in portrait mode.
We plan to move the right gutter info below each post, if not this year than early in 2016 for a variety of reasons. There will be more of a timeline / scroll bar thing in the right gutter when the page is wide enough.
As for “how many replies does a digression warranting a topic split entail” it’s hard to say, depends on the topic, the participants, etc. I do think “please stay on topic” staff warnings can be very helpful. Even if they are from regular ol’ users.
i know like usual i’m late to the conversation, but I like it when systems show a single greyed out line: -this comment has been flagged by a moderator- or some such thing, hiding the comment but allowing you to click on and expand it if you are curious. ideally you wouldn’t be able to reply to that comment at that point because that would just fuel the problem.
i find that much more helpful that outright deletes.
Awesome, thanks!
That does happen (post has been hidden due to community flags, click to view) if there are enough outstanding community flags on a particular reply, it just rarely happens in practice. For spam and such it is not uncommon, or really crazily offensive posts, but neither of those occur here very often.
(Oddly enough, there was just now a “buykid” spammer who had a post hidden through flagging, but if I ever see outright spam flags, I do handle them and destroy/ban via our one click mod tool. That is the only kind of flag I handle here.)
I just noticed that with an advert spam comment i flagged from buykud. 
I prefer this way of handling moderator removed messages as well instead of outright deletion, it is more transparent and maintains the integrity of the thread while removing the offensive comments from view of anyone except those who explicitly choose to view them.
I know you of all people really think out the functionality and consequences of how things are implemented much more then anyone else i’ve ever encountered so I’m sure you have your reasons for handling it how you do, but if I had a a wish, deletions would be handled this way.
the often requested “silencing/ignore” of other users would also be added and handled this way, so the integrity of the thread is maintained but you don’t see the post of a specific user unless you choose to. hidden but not gone, you see that something was there and can choose to view if you desire. even quotes from ignored users could be hidden/collapsed in this manner.
Look up broken window theory on Wikipedia. Or ask yourself why toxic waste in the environment is cleaned up, rather than being marked off limits. Related, consider why heads on a pike outside the kingdom isn’t always the best way to approach justice.
You are generally bringing up stuff that has hours of existing discussion and explanation around it. These are not new concepts. Feel free to read around.
I am sympathetic to the argument that post removal doesn’t give the user much chance to learn about the rules, but there is also an existing meta topic on that as well…
Etc. lots and lots of reading here
I’ll read up on that and think about it for sure. thanks!
Right now I’m thinking of it more like library books. I prefer that the ones that certain librarians or the local public find offensive be flagged yet still accessible rather then banned and removed from circulation altogether. Especially since these books are all part of a single conversation and removing them altogether in a way breaks that conversation in uncontrollable and unaccountable ways (which is why you’ve explained you don’t allow ignore), but delete has the exact same consequences (falcor mentions this above, having to eat replies to removed content because the conversation thread breaks).
the digital equivalent of putting pixels over offensive images or bleeping out offensive words, those aren’t removed altogether but rather covered over to maintain the greater integrity of what is being discussed. Having them able to be optionally removed is ideal. just a thought.
This is not a public library, you are in the house of the BB editors. And when you are in their house, you abide by their rules. I agree that it is in their interest to make those rules clear and fair…ish. But it is their personal, commercial, private house, not a public courtroom or anything of the sort.
I’m not intending to claim any rights by referencing the public library or that this blog is in anyway public, that wasn’t my intended point. my point was about the integrity of the discussion and the consequences of breaking that integrity to achieve moderation. I’m all for the right to moderate, what I’m suggesting is a way to do it without breaking the integrity of the discussion, or at least my ideas on it for whatever they are worth.
Anyway, I don’t mean to tell you how to change your software, just my opinion of how I’d most prefer to see things handled if it were my call. obviously it isn’t! 
and i fully acknowledge that I don’t spend as much time as you thinking out these features, so I defer to your judgment. I’ve been quite happy with Discourse overall. I’m a fan with a wishlist, not a critic… 
They can be useful, but from users? I’m less sure about that. We already don’t flag enough, so I thought we’d rather encourage that. And also, it’s ambiguous. If someone who isn’t ‘official’ gives instructions like that, it’s not clear if they’re actually to be taken seriously or not.
Also, when someone who isn’t a mod jumps in and starts telling people what to discuss or to stay on topic, my initial reaction is generally “Well, who died and made you king of the forum?”
So yeah, I’m not too keen on that.
Perhaps you’re right - but one thing regular users can do is resist the urge to reply to off topic tangents, or gently nudge someone else back on track using a reply that briefly touches on the digression then anchors back to the topic at hand.
Some of the digressions are the best stuff on here! If everything had to stay on topic or get moved to another thread, it would make the place miiiiiighty tedious. Free flowing discussions are way more fun to read. Angry digressions are what sucks. I hate reading other people’s and I hate it when I do it. That’s the stuff that needs cleanup.
When there’s a thread about cat poop and someone starts talking about their parakeet, I find that interesting because it’s off topic. So I don’t like the idea of keeping the place too tidy. The messy, chaotic nature of mutant conversation is what gives this bbs its character.
If you read the upstream topic that’s not really what we’re talking about. Someone brought up a ONE HUNDRED REPLY DIGRESSION and I was thinking more like 10,15, 20 replies myself would be a minimum threshold.
Of course conversations meander a bit, that’s expected. That’s not really what we’re talking about here.
'ave they?
In other news, I encourage everybody to keep their thumb on the flag-hammers, and use the “reply-as-new-topic” judiciously. In threads that I’ve created, I’m often quite pro-active in encouraging people to move OT digressions that threaten the (imagined?) “integrity” of the thread elsewhere. And if they don’t do it, I flag 'em.
My cat poop parakeet poops on your poopy flag hammers. Too tidy and rulesmongery for no purpose other than what? Your sense of satisfaction? My sense of satisfaction goes meh at stuff I find pointless and cool! at stuff that’s pointless but interesting and then I click on new stuff after I’m done reading. Why is your sense of order SO important?
you know what would fix that though, right?
I think the idea is that the linked topic replies are meant to create some kind of vast, TVtropes-type web of inter-related discussions. In practice it hasn’t really panned out that way, in part because it seems that most linked topics are created by splitting off digressions after they’ve started rather than by someone replying as a linked topic.
That’s my impression too. By the time somebody suggests or demands a split, the hot urge to digress has somewhat passed. And then the net result is a little-attended new thread and all the digressions in the previous original thread remain in place, a zero sum game. That’s why I’m a fan of the chaos, even great chaos, because out of great chaos is the potential for great beauty to come. We like to make great beauty come.
I think we should try using only one comment thread, for everything.
