I got my first ever Mod Note here:
Why are we not allowed to criticize Mr. Attwood, or his software? It’s not as if any software is bug free, and Mr. Attwood is ultimately responsible for that software.
I mean, a while ago, a random update completely messed up the menus. It was clearly a bug. And yet it was released.
I am a software developer. This stuff is important to me. I don’t see any reason why we should not complain about bugs.
Can you explain further, please, @engineer_comp_geek ?
Just speaking for myself, critiques of Discourse are one thing, but
and
Really look like you’re attacking codinghorror. I think you’re aware you’re not suppose to attack posters outside of the pit and codinghorror is a poster.
I really think you could have expressed your opinion much better and without the angry looking attack.
Now that is my take, @engineer_comp_geek will probably have a more detail explanation, but even my simple take is plenty to issue a modnote.
Thanks. I will await @engineer_comp_geek answer.
But yes, it was too angry and aggressive a criticism, so my apologies for that.
(Not sure if I am within the edit window, but I also apologize for the grievous misspelling in my thread title)
Atwood, not Attwood.
I fixed it.
Thank you
A software developer should know what is and what is not acceptable for a bug report.
Also, while @codinghorror is technically a user here, I don’t think he participates much as a user (probably due to all of the snark and entitlement that was shoved his way when we first switched to Discourse, but that’s just a guess on my part). As the head of the Discourse team, he is technically staff. Do not attack staff for any reason. This includes anyone on the Discourse team and anyone at STM, etc.
Don’t bite the hand that feeds us.
Constructive criticism is always welcome. Bug reports (that are actual bug reports and not rants) are always welcome. Just be respectful.
I disagree with some of the things you have said, but
I can agree with. I was an asshole, and I will try to not be one.
Except the modnote said
Do not attack Discourse, @codinghorror, or their staff.
So more than just codinghorror. And I interpret this as codinghorror qua Discourse staff not a poster
Sorry if the wrong forum or post but this seems in line with “constructive criticism” even though it takes the form of a question:
Is there any way to arrange for posts to be presented in a “threaded” manner? Instead of laid out sequentially, in time, with individual links (that have to be accessed from each post/reply) to prior posts?
I.e., if you wanted to get an overview of the various branches of a particular conversation, is that possible (much like TBird’s handling of email and USENET)?
Without knowing what goes on behind the scenes (software wise), I can’t begin to estimate the likelihood of this or the suitability of its inclusion as a feature…
Thanks!
Please, please no threaded posting on this board. I would have to leave.
I suppose if it was possible to change to a threaded view as an alternative there would be no harm, if it was something you opted into.
I doubt that it would be worth it for Discourse to develop something like that, I doubt the demand is enough to warrant the resources for it. But again, if it was added as an optional feature I wouldn’t mind.
I’d never use it though. I don’t find it necessary either. The board already does a decent enough job of making it clear who is replying to whom.
In fact, I’d say it is already partially threaded. You can expand a post to see its replies underneath, and if a post in a thread is a reply to an earlier post you can click an arrow to go back to the post replied to.
Except for when the only reply is the next post…
Yeah that “feature” sucks.
For example, it’s hard to tell that I’m replying to you.
I’ve often wondered, without following it up, if that “feature” only lasts as long as yours is the last post, and when someone else posts after you, the “responding to” thing comes up. So here goes.
eta: nope, it’s still blank. That does suck.
Yep. You have to quote a portion of the quote you’re responding to (as I just did). Completely non-intuitively and dumb.
I wouldnt say it’s non-intuitive. It makes it clear what you’re addressing. Wasn’t that the standard on the old board? To always include the part of the post youre responding to? I prefer it when folks quote the portion they are answering.
It’s non-intuitive because at the time you’re replying, it looks like it’s going to show who you’re responding to. But once you post, it doesn’t. There’s nothing indicating that it’s a response or to whom.
If you do a quote of the poster then the reader will know two things: who you’re resonding to, and which part of their post you are responding to.
IMO, this is more useful than only knowing that someone is quoting a post that could be 20 or 30 paragraphs long.
It’s handy to know which part of the post one is quoting.
Yes, of course, but sometimes the post you’re quoting is short, like a sentence, and you just quote the whole thing. Oops. Thing is, you have no way of knowing you can’t do that ahead of time. Every day I see posters make that mistake.