Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers

by dragonchild (Archbishop)
on Aug 11, 2003 at 12:52 UTC ( #282841=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
in thread Automatic Re-ing with numbers

I prefer seeing the depth, because that tells me how off on a tangent the node is likely to be. Sometimes, I want to see the tangent. Sometimes, I don't. It's very disconcerting to see "Re: foobar" and find that it's 9 replies deep, not 1 reply deep.

What I would love to see is two links off of Newest Nodes - the one we see now and Head (or something similar). I often find myself clicking on a link, then not even reading it until I click on the head node. I like having context when I read and I can't keep the context of the 10 threads I'm reading throughout the day straight.

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brain-meltingly complicated. -- TheDamian, Exegesis 6

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.


Comment on Re: Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
Re^3: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by particle (Vicar) on Aug 11, 2003 at 13:22 UTC
    I prefer seeing the depth, because that tells me how off on a tangent the node is likely to be.

    the node depth is not a consistent measure of subject relevance. occasionally, replies between monks approach conversation level, and the depth increases dramatically. this does not mean they have moved off topic.

    for instance, i've seen nits worked out of algorithms presented previously, and not patched in the nodes above. if you're unfamiliar with the subject of the thread, and the authors involved in the discussion, it's difficult to generalize relevancy from node depth alone. so perhaps instead of writing that the depth tells you the relevancy, it would be more accurate to say it is one measure of relevancy. no?

    ~Particle *accelerates*

Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Aug 11, 2003 at 13:27 UTC
    What I would love to see is two links off of Newest Nodes - the one we see now and Head (or something similar). I often find myself clicking on a link, then not even reading it until I click on the head node. I like having context when I read and I can't keep the context of the 10 threads I'm reading throughout the day straight.

    I seldomly try to keep track of a thread. The UI of Perlmonks makes it so much harder to do than for instance on Usenet. Perlmonks doesn't give you a way to keep track of what you have read, and what you haven't (well, unless you read at most 40 posts, and vote for every post you read). Newest Nodes just don't do it.

    Furthermore, people have the tendency of to not quote what they are responding to. Which means that if you try to keep track of a thread, you often encounter a reply that requires one or more clicks to parent posts to see what they are replying to.

    Abigail

      people have the tendency of to not quote what they are responding to.
      Which they shouldn't (when they're not replying to a specific point in a long post, anyway), since we have a perfect archive here. Even if you read a reply to a post 4 year old post written 3 years before you ever first visited the site, the context is still available. Quoting offers much less on PerlMonks than on Usenet.
      The UI of Perlmonks makes it so much harder to [keep track of a thread] than for instance on Usenet.

      I do agree. Which is funny since the information is there - unlike on Usenet, where it depends on a lot of factors whether you will have the full context of a post.

      Maybe it should be an option to always show the parent of a node you're viewing.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        Which they shouldn't (when they're not replying to a specific point in a long post, anyway), since we have a perfect archive here.

        I wouldn't call it a perfect archive given that, with relatively few exceptions, one can go back and change nodes he wrote ages ago if he is so inclined.

        -sauoq
        "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
        
        Which they shouldn't (when they're not replying to a specific point in a long post, anyway), since we have a perfect archive here. Even if you read a reply to a post 4 year old post written 3 years before you ever first visited the site, the context is still available.

        I didn't say it's impossible - but it requires at least one other fetch, more if you want to go up further in the thread. And this is slow. It requires more actions, there's a lot of non-post in a fetch, and it requires you to read the entire post to understand the followup. It just makes it harder to follow a thread, not impossible.

        Abigail

      Please don't encourage PM to start the trend of fully quoting everything including the quoted quotes and the quotes those quotes quoted (ad nauseum) from previous posts per Usenet/mailing lists.

      I really hate that!

      You open a new msg, wade through 100 lines of quotes only to find a one liner of "Me too" or "I disagree" or worse, a funny quip. Gah!


      Examine what is said, not who speaks.
      "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
      "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -Richard Buckminster Fuller
      If I understand your problem, I can solve it! Of course, the same can be said for you.

        Please don't encourage PM to start the trend of fully quoting everything including the quoted quotes and the quotes those quotes quoted (ad nauseum) from previous posts per Usenet/mailing lists.

        Did I say people should fully quote the entire article? I doubt that, because I hate that myself. But I do appreciate relevant quotes, with replies interleaved. This sometimes means that an article is quoted in full, specially if the article is short, but usually it doesn't.

        You open a new msg, wade through 100 lines of quotes only to find a one liner of "Me too" or "I disagree" or worse, a funny quip. Gah!

        Such posts are usually annoying anyway, even if they don't quote.

        Abigail

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://282841]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-08-01 07:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (257 votes), past polls