|
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
| [reply] |
|
|
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
| [reply] |
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
|
|
|
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
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
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
| [reply] |
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*
| [reply] |