Last post

[JayJhabrix]

Extremely misleading and irritating. Absolutely literal.

Definitely, in threaded view, you have no idea how many other posts you've missed. In linear view it may not be so bad...

[Guest]

that's the reason i don't use threaded view. what a dumb concept on a web forum. why TRY mimic nntp's coolness when you're not going to implement it. the result of such attempts is usually FAIL.

[Kath-H]

Agreed. I tried threaded view, couldn't make sense of it. Plus the ridiculous narrowing of posts.

[JayJhabrix]

dave milbut wrote:

that's the reason i don't use threaded view. what a dumb concept on a web forum. why TRY mimic nntp's coolness when you're not going to implement it. the result of such attempts is usually FAIL.

Dave... that's why i use threaded view... it's not NNTP but at least one knows which post is being replied to... in the linear view, unless the poster has quoted, you don't have a clue! Actually, often in threaded view you don't have a clue either but, at least, your batting average is higher ;->

[Phillip_M_Jones]

jhabrix wrote:

dave milbut wrote:

that's the reason i don't use threaded view. what a dumb concept on a web forum. why TRY mimic nntp's coolness when you're not going to implement it. the result of such attempts is usually FAIL.

Dave... that's why i use threaded view... it's not NNTP but at least one knows which post is being replied to... in the linear view, unless the poster has quoted, you don't have a clue! Actually, often in threaded view you don't have a clue either but, at least, your batting average is higher ;->

EVER TRY :

[Guest]

jhabrix wrote:

Dave... that's why i use threaded view... it's not NNTP but at least one knows which post is being replied to... in the linear view, unless the poster has quoted, you don't have a clue! Actually, often in threaded view you don't have a clue either but, at least, your batting average is higher ;->

at the top of each post it says "in response to"... if not clear through context or quoting, that oughta clear it up.

[Claudio_González1]

dave milbut wrote:

at the top of each post it says "in response to"... if not clear through context or quoting, that oughta clear it up.

This has been discussed in another thread. The problem is that often one is replying to a message that's several places higher than the last, and many people in this situation just use the Reply button of the message immediately before. This is even more noticeable if the message one is replying to is in a previous page. Of course the "in response to" is then meaningless. I think it is preferable to always quote the message you are replying to, or at least part of it.

[adobe-admin]

This is one I've struggled with over the years. Many years ago I loved threading (thinking back to CompuServe days). But then we had off-line readers like TapCis that arranged all the messages into logical groups.

In web forums I've gone completey the other way. Linear. Think of it as being in a real-life conversation. One person says something, then someone else does, etc. It all happens in a linear fashion. If you want to "thread" you have to step away, out of the group. Same here, start a new thread if you want to branch off.

My first experience with threading on a web forum was the original MSN. And I found an issue immediately in that it was very easy to miss comments because they were posted in the wrong branch of a thread. I don't think there is a solution for that yet.

John

[Mark_A__Boyd]

Interesting, thanks for stating that perspective. I think of it slightly differently.

At first, everybody at the conference table is discussing the posed question. Smaller sub groups start talking about different aspects (hopefully on topic) and, even though you may be listening more intently to one of the sub groups, you can still hear - and join in the main or other conversations at the table. All without having to move to a conference table in a different room.

Threading (with a tree view display and interface) plus clear indication of read/unread messages makes that a breeze. To me, many Web forums - especially where people reply only to the OP and quoting is rare, are similar to news pundit programs where everybody is chattering at the anchor.

It is also convenient to mark a message or thread as unread so you can go back to it easier as time allows.

[JayJhabrix]

adobe-admin wrote:

This is one I've struggled with over the years. Many years ago I loved threading (thinking back to CompuServe days). But then we had off-line readers like TapCis that arranged all the messages into logical groups.

In web forums I've gone completey the other way. Linear. Think of it as being in a real-life conversation. One person says something, then someone else does, etc. It all happens in a linear fashion. If you want to "thread" you have to step away, out of the group. Same here, start a new thread if you want to branch off.

My first experience with threading on a web forum was the original MSN. And I found an issue immediately in that it was very easy to miss comments because they were posted in the wrong branch of a thread. I don't think there is a solution for that yet.

John

Fine... but then start with the last read post and not the last posted post – as it used to be in the earlier forums.

[Kath-H]

I'm one who ignores threading. I treat these forums like the last version and just add my reply on the end. Mostly that is, sometimes I reply to one person if things have drifted, but my reply still goes at the end. If I need to clarify, I quote a snippet - this would be easier if we could see more than one post below this enormous message box.

It's no good telling me off, Claudio, I like my way

[Claudio_González1]

Kath-H wrote:

I'm one who ignores threading. I treat these forums like the last version and just add my reply on the end. Mostly that is, sometimes I reply to one person if things have drifted, but my reply still goes at the end. If I need to clarify, I quote a snippet - this would be easier if we could see more than one post below this enormous message box.

It's no good telling me off, Claudio, I like my way

Sorry, Kath, I have not been around here very much in the last several days and so I have just seen your message above.

You are not by any means the only one to use the Reply button of the last posted message, and you are one of the few who, while doing so, add that minimum of information that is needed to know what you are talking about. So no, I wasn't telling you off. Had I wanted to single you out for any reason, you may rest assured that I would have addressed you by name. You may have noticed that I also have no fear of posting under my own name, and of giving a short but true "biography" and a real photo of myself in my profile. I was taught as a child to openly face the consequences of what I do and what I say, and I haven't forgotten is spite of the too many decades since then.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Claudio González wrote:

You may have noticed that I also have no fear of posting under my own name, and of giving a short but true "biography" and a real photo of myself in my profile. I was taught as a child to openly face the consequences of what I do and what I say, and I haven't forgotten is spite of the too many decades since then.

A rather dapper looking chap at that.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

jhabrix wrote:

…start with the last read post and not the last posted post – as it used to be in the earlier forums.

Elementary.

This is such a basic navigation feature that it's incomprehensible that it was not implemented from day one or that it still remains to be fixed.

[Jacob Bugge]

I do as does Kath.

I wonder how many times the neighbouring Report Abuse is fired as an accidental shot when specific posts are being answered.

[Jay_Chevako]

While a last read post option would be perfect. It would be nice if in the meantime the "Last Post" would work more than half the time. It's a toss up as to whether it will take you to the last post or give you a 404 message.

Jay

[S_D_A_]

--

Best Regards,

Steve