Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Section Order on Newest Nodes

by athomason (Curate)
on Aug 29, 2000 at 12:36 UTC ( #30088=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

<img src="http://perlmonks.org/images/monasterygatestitle2.jpg" alt="the monastery gates">

Comment on Section Order on Newest Nodes
RE: Section Order on Newest Nodes
by turnstep (Parson) on Aug 29, 2000 at 16:09 UTC

    I can see your point, but the current system works for me because 95% of the replies are in answer to a Seekers of Perl Wisdom question (or a Meditation or Perl Monks Discussion like this one) and so they seem to "belong" with the others. I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other, however, and I may only prefer the current way due to it always being that way for me. At the very least, I'd like to keep the Breaking News and the Q&A sections at the bottom, as they are different enough from the other sections to warrant it, IMO. Both Tutorials and Cool Uses are rare enough that moving them would not really bother me much. My pet peeve is people who change the title of their replies, so that one cannot tell what thread it belongs to unless you read all the root nodes and memorize the titles as you go. True threading on the Newest Nodes page would make a very nice feature and fix that problem.

    my TwoCents;
      Yes, yes, yes, yes yes!
      $what_she_said *= 10000l;
      I really don't like changed subjects, it makes conversations much too hard to follow.

      Nuance

RE: Section Order on Newest Nodes (this monk agrees)
by ybiC (Prior) on Aug 31, 2000 at 08:46 UTC
    I'm glad to see you bring this up, athomason, as the same thought ocurred to me recently. FWIW, I'd like to see the layout be as you describe.

    And I also agree with Turnstep's kvetch above about "anti-thread" reply names.   I respect that some of our fellow Monks have reasons for completely changing the node name of their replies, but it *does* make it tougher to follow context.   Kudra started a very logical reply naming scheme a couple months ago, that I think could be encouraged as "suggested standard" of sorts.   It goes something like this: RE(3)Original Node Name Here(Brief Reply Title Here).   A variation includes the replying Monk name with the RE (n), but I fail to see what value that adds, since the replying Monk's name is always associated somewhere close anyway.

    My opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them.
        cheers,
        ybiC

    Update: thanks to chromatic, who pointed me to The Threading Dilemma which already discusses in depth these points and much more.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://30088]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-12 16:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    When choosing user names for websites, I prefer to use:








    Results (240 votes), past polls