Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?

by demerphq (Chancellor)
on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:03 UTC ( #392998=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Hi folks.

I put together the code that is currently in demerphq's sandpit as an implementation of a threaded newest nodes. Thing is so far there hasn't been much positive feedback (or actually feedback in general). It seems that most of the pmdevils are not particularly interested in it. This is fine of course, but before I totally abandon the idea as unwelcome I thought I'd give the public at large a chance to contribute their thoughts.

Its important to bear in mind that the code in demerphq's sandpit is strictly for testing (so don't expect it to always have the same code running). The fact that im drawing folks attention to it now doesn't commit me to continuing this effort nor does it mean it will ever go "live" as a standard site node. OTOH, if people like it and want it to become permanent then it probably will.

Suggestions and constructive criticism welcome.

Oh, yeah, its worth mentioning that at least some folks have had problems with the page when using older browsers versions. FireFox v 0.093 in particular. It seems that this is a browser fault as latter FireFox releases have no problem. But you have been warned :-)

update:No the current NN won't disappear regardless of what happens with this. Please include any suggestions you have about how it should be presented. Especially suggestions that would make it easier to style. Specific suggestions for how to represent the age are extremely welcome, I recognize that the size/bold thing isn't ideal. I intend to add time information as text, but I also want a visual cue to the age. I've been thinking of a color blend, but that needs to be context sensitive to the users theme.


---
demerphq

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    -- Gandhi

    Flux8


  • Comment on Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:44 UTC
    I ***>>WANT<<*** this!!!

    (Hrmm ... maybe that wasn't emphatic enough. *grins*)

    Seriously - this would revolutionize how I view Newest Nodes, similarly to how GMail has revolutionized how I relate to email. Threading is uber-powerful, and more closely maps how humans think.

    Maybe, you create a Threaded_Newest_Nodes and let people choose which one they want to use. Put a link to it from Newest Nodes and monitor the usage.

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

    Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

    I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by davido (Cardinal) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:20 UTC

    demerphq: Would it be difficult to implement collapse/expand, or depth settings on a per-section basis? I might be interested in seeing in Newest Nodes expanded threads to ten levels of depth for the nodes posted within Seekers of Perl Wisdom, but only one level of depth (or non-expanded) in Poetry, for example.

    Overall, I like the premise, it makes a lot of sense. The old Newest Nodes should always be a click away from the threaded version though.


    Dave

      This is done now. I also added consideration, approval and front page status. Enjoy.

        I don't see the depth-by-section setting, and would really like such a feature. For example, next to the Discussion section heading, I would like a "Set depth" dropdown. And likewise next to each section heading. That way I could reduce the max depth on a per-section basis.

        I'm not keen on multiple font sizes, but bold is fine for nodes less than, say, 1/4th of the "xx days" setting.

        I do like that the threads are collapsable. I wouldn't mind seeing them collapsed by default, and an asterisk if there are responses within a certain timeframe.

        ...just a few thoughts. ;)

        Oh, and the whole thing looks pretty bad on PDA screens like the Zaurus, but I don't think there's much that can be done about that. ...As long as we keep the old version of Newest Nodes around as an option, that will be fine.


        Dave

        What I'd like to see there too — or even more, is the age of a node. Granted, I can see when a node is posted when hovering over the link with the mouse, but it's not that handy. I was thinking of a format not unlike the "last here" time on user's homenodes: "3 minutes ago", "1 hour ago", "4 weeks ago" — though it could be a bit more compact: "3m", "1h", or "4w" respectively.
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by meredith (Friar) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:09 UTC

    I like it, and it could make my perusal of new entries much more sane. By the load time, it feels like a heavy node, though...

    mhoward - at - hattmoward.org

      Im not sure about the load issue. How does it compare for you to newest nodes? And is the timing consistant when you do a refresh? Also are you using it in "day mode" or "time mode" (ie did you use the "I've checked these" button or not?)


      ---
      demerphq

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi

        Flux8


        Day mode. Human-timed, I get Newest Nodes at about 5 seconds, and yours at about 17 seconds. That's not bad, considering the extra work of finding children. (I do hate gathering the children, after they've run all about the monstery.)

        mhoward - at - hattmoward.org

        Timing like hattmoward did, I get 13 seconds for both, so I see no time-to-load issue for me.

        I am very impressed by the looks of it (++demerphq's work).
        I am also very happy with the new usability too. Yay!

        What I like to preserve though is that PM isn't working too much the same way Usenet News does - at least in my perception. All questions on top, waiting for people to find answers to them.
        Presented in this way ,PM's newest nodes look more like Usenet, threaded and such... well, we will see it evolve.

        Cheerio, Sören

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by FoxtrotUniform (Prior) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:53 UTC

    Beautiful. I really like the threaded interface - it seems a lot less random and cluttered than the "newest first" interface we have.

    As I type, Sidhekin is Chatterboxing about "(using) CSS to get rid of some of that clutter". I don't find the interface cluttered, but I like the idea of embedding the "right" kind of CSS (whatever that means) to let users customize their view of it. This is something I know very little about, but it sure sounds cool. What kind of CSS is there that would allow user-level hacking, and what else could be easily added?

    Thanks again! This is great stuff.

    --
    F o x t r o t U n i f o r m
    Found a typo in this node? /msg me
    % man 3 strfry

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by bobf (Monsignor) on Sep 22, 2004 at 20:32 UTC

    Great idea - I would love to see this implemented! The threaded view would make it a lot easier for me to scan through NN quickly and pick out the nodes that interest me, especially if it's been a while and there are a lot of intermingled listings in "notes".

    One comment: unless I'm misunderstanding something, the size formatting reflects the age of the post only, so there is no way to tell which posts you've read. In addition, every time a post is added to a thread, all posts in that thread would be visible on the NN page, regardless of when you last clicked "I've checked all of these". Would it be possible to show just the root node and only the new replies (based on the "last checked" flag) under it? That would provide the organizational benefit of threading, while still retaining the filter provided by the "last checked" flag.

    An alternative approach would be to format the titles based on the "last checked" flag, rather than based on the age of the node. For example, bold font could be used for new (unread) nodes, and those posted before the "last checked" flag could be normal/smaller. I think I like this idea better than the previous one, since I'd rather know if I've read a node than if the node is 1 vs 2 days old.

    Finally, adding davido's suggestion regarding collapse/expand would give the ability to show all nodes between the root and newest nodes, thereby allowing the entire thread to be viewed.

    Good work! Thanks again.

      In addition, every time a post is added to a thread, all posts in that thread would be visible on the NN page, regardless of when you last clicked "I've checked all of these".

      In the default mode "Ancestors only" it'll only show newest nodes and their direct ancestors. If you click on "full thread" you'll the newest nodes and any other nodes in the same threads as the newest. But yeah, theres possibility of more options. Once I have a clearer idea what people would like Ill look into implementing the most sensible and popular.


      ---
      demerphq

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi

        Flux8


Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by McMahon (Chaplain) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:12 UTC
    I *really* like it!

    I spend most of my time with an eye on NN. It's great to see which top-level posts are getting attention without having to grok the many many entries under Notes.
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by cLive ;-) (Prior) on Sep 22, 2004 at 21:12 UTC

    Normally I don't interject, because I really don't see the point of some changes suggested, but since you ask...

    As it stands, the monastery has turned into a monolith - several hundred db queries per page I believe. That's crazy - whatever happened to KISS?

    The site is already crawling on several (3 now, isn't it?) servers.

    I would only say no problem if each article thread was cached, and the DB was only hit for each menu only once every couple of minutes. Here's a RL example. We have "live" news feeds that our client's can embed in their pages that are called through SSI. The feed article DB is updated hourly. Templates are designed by customers, and populated once an hour, creating static files. This way, each feed template builds a live page once an hour. When the SSI is called, if the populated template is less than 60 minutes old, it's served, else it's rebuilt from the DB. This results in each designed feed template resulting in one hit on the DB per hour. This way, we can safely offer the feature to all 1000 odd domains on the server without having to worry about the overhead. Now, I know Newest Nodes is different, but is each view generated on the fly, or shown from a cache? Would anyone *really* be bothered if these threaded indices were cached and only rebuilt once every 2-3 minutes? Just something to think about...

    I can't believe that this much hardware is needed to serve a couple of hundred people at a time. Unfortunately, I don't think this can be fixed without a complete rethink of the underlying design philosophy.

    demerphq. I can understand you wanting to improve the monastery. You are a great coder, but I get a gut feeling that the inmates are running the asylum (that's meant to be a ;-) not a :( - ok! :)

    I would love to see you using your (seemingly unbounded :) energy towards making each page load twice as fast. I can't see why each page needs more than a dozen or so DB queries.

    Or, to start with a clean slate and create a "PM lite", with pages that load a lot faster, with compromises made on customizations. I would use it, probably most of the time. In the same way that I read slashdot with images turned off.

    Or maybe I'm just turning into a grumpy old man (well, I *am* nearly 34 :)

    .02

    cLive ;-)

      I think theres some misconceptions in your node. My code actually will do less queries than NN. Yes it could profit from some performance tuning, but overall its actually fairly conservative with how it interacts with the DB. Constructing the trees is fairly cheap. Im not going to go into why PM needs so many queries, suffice it to say that there is a fairly good caching system in play so that commonly used nodes are almost always in cache. OTOH, the caching system means every time we "use" a node we have to do version check on the cached value. Since everything is a node in Everything pretty much this means a lot of version checking and because of the nondeterministice way it happens you cant even batch the checks up. So all together we arent reducing the number beyond a marginal amount without totally different architecture.

      When and where we see optimization possibilities we do our best to exploit them, but theres only so much we can do in this framework.


      ---
      demerphq

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi

        Flux8


Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by krujos (Curate) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:49 UTC
    I dig it. This is something I have wanted to see for a long time on pm. ++demerphq. The sizing and bold stuff for the age of the node threw me off at first, time stamps might be more clear. Something like <subject> by <author> @ <time>... I suppose that would open another can of worms though. Thanks for all the hard work.
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by jbware (Chaplain) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:50 UTC
    ++ Great work! For those that don't want to see the children but would like to know activity level, have you considered adding a "(## replies)" text after the subject? I'd personally opt for the threaded version myself, but that may be a nice middle-ground for some.

    -jbWare
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by graff (Chancellor) on Sep 23, 2004 at 04:43 UTC
    Wow! But...

    I like this, because I've always had two major gripes about the old NN list:

    (a) For any top-level node listed as new, I don't get to see how many replies it has -- I have to leave NN and go to the particular "wing" (SoPW, etc) or to the node itself to see if there are replies. (I've learned to deal with this well enough, using tabs on my browser, but knowing the quantity of replies, without having to leave NN, would really be helpful.)

    (b) For any top-level node that is no longer "new" for me, I won't see any new replies in that thread unless I sift through the "Notes" portion of NN (which, as sintadel points out, is pretty unwieldy).

    Your new Threaded version solves both problems, so it's definitely cool. But it strikes me as overkill. While it is much nicer/easier to scan than the variable-length "15 Nodes per Page" format of the various "wings" (SoPW, etc), it has lost the economy and compactness of the original NN's "one line per thread" format.

    I'd like to suggest an alternative design, which is (I hope) an easy simplication of the threaded approach you've shown us. It would keep the "one line per thread" format of the old NN list, and instead of showing the thread's internal structure and depth, there would simply be a number in the right-hand column, saying how many replies have appeared in the thread (regardless of depth) since the viewer's "newness" threshold.

    I'm assuming it's fairly easy and not too costly to run a query that gets all nodes where "age < threshold_age" (or "date > threshold_date"). To the extent that titles on replies are consistently following the new format of /Re(?:\^\d+): (.*)/ it should be pretty easy to locate and keep track of the root nodes (title eq $1) for all the new replies.

    With that, your idea of using the font to indicate new things in an old thread will work fine to differentiate between just two cases: new root nodes (with 0 or more replies, all of which must be new), vs. old root nodes with 1 or more new replies (not counting replies that aren't new).

    With that sort of setup, I could easily imagine not needing or having a "Notes" section at all. But I expect a lot of people like the idea of having direct links to specific new replies. Well, now that you already have a means for showing the tree structure of a whole thread, why not apply this on an "as-needed" basis: consider a one-line-per-thread layout on the "new improved NN" list like this:

    [Thread title (font shows new vs. old)] [author] [# of new replies] - Thread title links to the whole thread, just like old NN - author links to OP's home node, just like old NN - "# of new replies" links to a full thread tree, where font highlighting shows which replies are new
    This way, you only pay the price of laying out a full tree for one thread at a time, when a viewer asks to see a particular tree -- and considering how big some of these trees get, it makes sense to have a resource that just puts one whole tree on one page. I like it. Do you think you'd try it?

    If you do, someone (e.g. me) would probably ask that this tree-display resource be used throughout all the "wing" sections on PM: wherever there is a link labeled "# of replies", it would be really sweet for that to take you to a tree display, instead of going directly to "the whole magilla" (especially since the title link already goes there).

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by VSarkiss (Monsignor) on Sep 22, 2004 at 19:30 UTC

    I guess I should have been more explicit previously, but I like it a lot.

    I'm not qualified to comment on what it would do to the PM servers. It seems to load in reasonable time, but if everyone started using it, I don't know how it would scale.

    I also like some of the customization options people have mentioned: thread depth, size, etc. I presume it would already use some of the User Settings, like which sections to show, whether to include reaped nodes, and so on.

    Thanks for all the good work, Patchmaster.

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by grantm (Parson) on Sep 22, 2004 at 20:28 UTC

    Yes siree! This is something I've wished for (silently) for some time.

    I didn't find the different sized fonts and bolding added to my browsing experience. In fact I found them a bit distracting.

    I also would be a little concerned about the processing load being higher. Benchmarking it against the standard flat page would seem prudent.

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by Zed_Lopez (Chaplain) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:15 UTC
    That rocks. I hope you'll stick with it.
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by ambrus (Abbot) on Sep 22, 2004 at 19:28 UTC

    I don't like this idea. I find the currently existing Newest Nodes more readable, because I can see all the new threads on a list but nothing more. I usually want to know about the replies of only those nodes that interest me. I certainly don't want to see all new replies.

    If fellow monks find this idea useful, you can of course implement it, but please do it only as an alternative to the current style of Newest Nodes, not something completely replacing it.

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by castaway (Parson) on Sep 23, 2004 at 07:36 UTC
    I've just played with this a bit, and now I'm trying to organise my thoughts..
    Reading all this discussion, I remember that for quite a time I wanted to have parts of NN threaded. What I would actually like to see, would be the top part of NN (everything except the Notes) stay the same as it is, and the Notes part be threaded in itself, just showing new notes for the day/timeframe, omitting extraneous older nodes.

    Having said that, when I first looked at the threaded version, I thought "Too Much Information", even though the default selection says "Last 1 days", its showing older nodes, for the purpose of 'connecting' the root node to the new note. I think this is unnecessary. (The full threaded view, which I noticed afterwards, is just too huge for words :) - I would advocate (since we like options these days), a third view, which just shows the root node, and any new notes, omitting the connecting, older nodes.

    As for the font sizes, I think they just make things look ugly, sorting by a vague 'newest first' should be enough, in my opinion, since the point of threads isnt usually to indicate age at all , just relationship.

    A further thought, since most of the nodes are listed purely because they have replies in the last day, what about showing things backwards? Ie last reply first, root node last?

    On a positive note, its really nice to finally see which new replies whch nodes have gotten, it makes me realise how much Ive been missing. (I rarely if ever scan the bottom part of NN, or look for replies to my nodes or ones Ive written in)

    I'm hoping if this or something likes it gets to be a real node, that SoPW "Questions" will get sorted nearer the top. ,)

    On a side note, I think Newest Nodes itself has gotten a little cluttered recently. In a flash of inspiration, Ive just wondered if we cant have a nodelet that lists those new nodes types which cannot be replied to, (Eg: FAQs, users, htmlcodes, other internal bits) and ban them from NN?

    C.

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Sep 22, 2004 at 20:39 UTC

    I updated my permanent browser tab to point to it.

    Nice one demerphq++.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks.
    "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
    "Think for yourself!" - Abigail
    "Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by jacques (Priest) on Sep 22, 2004 at 18:45 UTC
    I love it! Good work.

    But I think it should be optional, as others have suggested.

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by exussum0 (Vicar) on Sep 22, 2004 at 22:39 UTC
    I'll be the nay sayer and say while it's really cool and great for some people, I dont' like it for my own usage. As I've gotten busier and busier, it's a lot harder to read a lot of nodes. I rather see what topics are new, reply in turn, and reply to replies. Others replies don't interest me as much due to time. Thus, the current NN works better for me. I hope you do keep this one, as I see from the # of replies, that it's great, but please, dont' kill off mine.

    This is why katterbox, in the next release, will act the way it will. Sortable by status of the thread and I can click through at my leisure. But that's me pimpin' and digressing. :) Good work. That'll do q, that'll do.

    ----
    Then B.I. said, "Hov' remind yourself nobody built like you, you designed yourself"

Prior art
by belg4mit (Prior) on Sep 23, 2004 at 03:04 UTC
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by bwelch (Curate) on Sep 22, 2004 at 20:27 UTC
    I *really* like it. For me, it's easier to parse conversations and understand who is replying to exactly what.
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by sintadil (Pilgrim) on Sep 22, 2004 at 21:26 UTC

    In all honesty, this means very little to me. I have notes disabled on Newest Nodes expressly because there's so many of them that it makes the page unwieldly, slow, and it makes it harder to find what I want (especially when I browse PM in 132x25 text mode, which I do very often).

    If it helps, look at it this way: PM is so great in my opinion that you don't need to change it. :)

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by PodMaster (Abbot) on Sep 23, 2004 at 02:57 UTC
    I'm not too keen on using font size to indicate age (stuff gets unreadable real quick). I'd reather you used color (kinda like we use to indicate depth). I'm very used to Newest Nodes the way it is :|

    MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
    I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
    ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by talexb (Canon) on Sep 22, 2004 at 20:34 UTC

    Nothing new to add .. but I agree it's a neat hack, and should be left as an option for the user. Possibly use CSS to set how the recent/not so recent/old stuff is displayed?

    Alex / talexb / Toronto

    "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by pfaut (Priest) on Sep 23, 2004 at 02:21 UTC

    I have my own (see link from my home node) but would prefer to use one that used the PerlMonks database directly. Yours looks good from a quick glance.

    90% of every Perl application is already written.
    dragonchild

      Theres a remarkable similarity isn't there?

      Keep your eyes open, ill be following up with good stuff over the next bit....


      ---
      demerphq

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi

        Flux8


Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 23, 2004 at 13:21 UTC
    Some items that were discussed in CB:
    • L~R brought up whether or not the sandpit should use the same flags as the current NN. dragonchild felt that it should be viewed as a different "skin". There was much discussion, but no consensus.
    • theorbtwo suggested an "I've checked these" button on a per-section basis. It was seconded and re-seconded.
    • A few ideas were mentioned about different ways to look at the threading.

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

    Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

    I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by radiantmatrix (Parson) on Sep 23, 2004 at 14:21 UTC
    This is fantastic. I assume it would be a user-pref whether to get the threaded or unthreaded version?

    As for presentation of aging, you needn't change the text color. Instead, how about small image bullets that are colored according to age? All you'd need is maybe 15 small solid-color PNG's, so there shouldn't be a serious load associated with them. Or, if that's not acceptable, you could use various levels for A id's: that would be themable, even through user CSS.

    <a id="reallynew" href="something.htm">A node link</a> <blockquote> <a id="prettyold" href="something-else.pl">Another link</a> </blockquote>

    You get the idea.

    require General::Disclaimer;

    All code, unless otherwise noted, is untested

    "All it will give you though, are headaches after headaches as it misinterprets your instructions in the most innovative yet useless ways." - Maypole and I - Tales from the Frontier of a Relationship (by Corion)

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by poqui (Deacon) on Sep 22, 2004 at 22:24 UTC
    The indentation and fonts really make it striking and interesting. I read other sites that have threaded listings, but I don't like them as much, because the newest stuff doesnt stand out.

    Great job!
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by Fineous_Fingers (Novice) on Sep 22, 2004 at 22:16 UTC
    Yeah, I like it better than the current format. Thanks for the work!
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by Arunbear (Prior) on Sep 23, 2004 at 09:02 UTC
    I like your idea demerphq++, definitely a great improvement over the existing 'Notes' section. I would use the threaded view if it were made available. I also think it would be nice to have the option of switching between threaded and non threaded views. :-)
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by mpeppler (Vicar) on Sep 23, 2004 at 09:47 UTC
    <AOL>Me Too!!!</AOL> :-)

    This would make checking NN a lot simpler for me as well. Great work!

    Michael

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by bibo (Pilgrim) on Sep 23, 2004 at 16:42 UTC
    I personally find it useful and a good thing.

    The font size thing works OK for my brain, but color ideas could work too. I think for a quick magnitude check of what's come in, and where the action is (or is lacking) this is cool.

    --bibo

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by cfreak (Chaplain) on Sep 23, 2004 at 17:01 UTC

    This is very cool however I think what I'd find more useful is a newest nodes list that shows just the number of replies and wheither or not the node has been approved.

    Chris

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by zakzebrowski (Curate) on Sep 25, 2004 at 18:02 UTC
    ++. I would actually start using newest nodes with this interface ... :)


    ----
    Zak - the office
Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by FoxtrotUniform (Prior) on Sep 26, 2004 at 09:10 UTC

    After playing with this for a couple of days, I've noticed a few things about how I use it.

    First of all, I have a finger-macro (wrist-macro?) for clicking the nav-bar "Newest nodes" link. It takes a bit of mental effort to go down to my personal nodelet and get to the threaded NN prototype. Not really something you can do anything about, though. :-)

    Second, I like having both NN interfaces available. When there aren't many new nodes (replies especially), the standard NN interface seems easier to use, as there's less visual clutter to wade through. This'll probably get better when the documentation text at the top goes away, but I doubt that threaded-NN will ever be easier for me to use for small numbers of new nodes than the standard version. On the other hand, the threaded mode is much nicer when I have a lot of new nodes to catch up on, as it's trivial for me to find the threads I'm interested in and ignore those I'm not.

    As an added bonus, in Ancestors mode it's easy to not only read a new reply, but read it in context. That's a big win that I didn't really expect, but now that I've discovered it I can't imagine not being able to do it. (What did I do before threaded-NN? It must have sucked.)

    I hope this is helpful feedback. Thanks again!

    --
    F o x t r o t U n i f o r m
    Found a typo in this node? /msg me
    % man 3 strfry

      I like having both NN interfaces available.

      I fully agree with this solution, since oldest NN could be found more reliable/fast by others. The only lacking thing would be the ability to choice which NN would be prefered in user settings.

      ____
      HTH, Dominique
      My two favorites:
      If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail. --Abraham Maslow
      Bien faire, et le faire savoir...

Re: Does the monastery want a threaded newest nodes?
by kelan (Deacon) on Sep 26, 2004 at 13:38 UTC

    I'm really liking this threaded view of NN. I do have one very minor nit, though. The expand/collapse "button" seems to collapse a little too far. When expanded, a thread has a blank line between it and the thread below. But when you collapse it, that blank line is collpsed as well. I think it would look better to keep the blank line so that independent threads are still easily discernable.

    Other than that, I think this view is great. Thanks for putting so much work into it.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://392998]
Approved by meredith
Front-paged by davido
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (7)
As of 2020-06-04 15:08 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you really want to know if there is extraterrestrial life?



    Results (32 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?