I might or might not take a look at it at some point. It would be kind of pointless if the change wouldn't be adopted. :smile:

I mentioned Slashdot not as a model, but merely as an example of using Javascript to show/hide posts. I'm not sure how much Javascript is required for the amount to become "evil", but this is really going to be rather simple Javascript. Out of curiosity though, why are you so against the use of Javascript? Is it because you wouldn't want to write it, or use it if somebody else wrote it?

Because javascript tends to restrict who can view the page. A surprising number of people these days disable it to the point where things like Slashdot and Digg don't work 100% properly. You can thank the scumbag advertisers for that :P

Obviously some things can't be avoided and those who don't use javascript would just have to live with the flat view. But the less invasive it is the better.

There is always better ways to do it. The question becomes how do you want it done?

It sounds like it's just a matter of formatting that would make it more appealing to you. So, how would you want it displayed?

That's easy to solve, though: set it up so that Javascript is used to hide things, not show them. Now everything works without Javascript, and those who do use it get to benefit from it.

Showing everything on page load and then hiding it with javascript works, but in a slow connection or a large page, javascript users tend to get this huge burst of "movement" once the DOM is ready. However, it's about the only way to make it work with js off besides using page reloads to substitute AJAX.

I sort of lost interest in the idea when I realized it couldn't be done to QSF (particularly, MudBytes) retroactively.

It could be done, but you have to accept that every current topic in the database will consist of one long thread, which is exactly the same thing you'd get if nobody ever hit the "quote" button and always just hit "reply" at the bottom of the page. Once those fields are filled in (via a script), new quoted replies would start branching.

Also, I find it amusing that slashdot has become an example for evil javascript use. I know one of the programmers there, and he was always a big fan of writing things in mod_perl so they would work on lynx (text mode browser). If he's still there, he's probably annoyed by the javascript as well. :)

EDIT: I should also say that it *IS* possible to write a script to walk the posts in a topic and use regular expressions to try and rebuild the thread ordering from the quoted material. However, it won't be 100% accurate, and it will be an ugly script. :devil:

You could do that, but given that people tend to nest quotes and pick them apart, if they use the quote feature at all, I dunno. There's no way to rebuild the MudBytes forum db without using a huge, unreliable hack, which I would never consider doing. Not to mention that since the feature wouldn't have existed originally, things would probably appear out of context in a threaded layout even if the script did an okay job.

If I had any reason to think I would be in need of a forum for another site in the neat future I might do it, but I have no such plans.

Why is it so bad to just have previous threads be "flat", and reap the benefits from now on? That sounds kind of like saying: we could build a faster computer, but we won't, because we already wasted so much time computing with a slower processor and can't change it retroactively.

I suppose it wouldn't, but I just feel a lot less motivated knowing it wouldn't be a retroactive change. Besides, it looks like someone else is taking a stab at it.

I'm assuming we're still talking about making this kind of a change optional for those people who don't want it, right? If not there'd be no more sure method of assuring some people cease participating in the forums than to force a change on them they don't like and never wanted.

Yeah, it would have to be optional. The problem with making it optional is that you'd still need to require those who use the "flat" view to reply to SOMEONE, not to the TOPIC, or the people who do use the threaded view wind up with something that doesn't make sense. I'm not too sure that would work well, since people using the flat view may be inclined to reply to anyone or click any reply button versus following the "flow" or whatever.

I just don't see it working well enough to make the flat people happy and the threaded people happy.

You would have to give the flat people the option to reply to individual posts, but the default "reply" action would be a reply to the topic's first post. For all intents and purposes it would be the exact same interface for them, although it would be more polite (depending on how many people use the threaded version) to do things properly. It's interesting how basic netiquette is so different on most forums on the one hand and then mailing lists and newsgroups on the other: threaded views are basically a given in the latter, and it's quite frowned upon to "break threads".

That's pretty much the issue. If everyone who uses the flat view is kind enough to reply *to* someone vs. the topic, it works great. Call me cynical, but I don't think most Internet communities have that much kindness in them.

That's probably the reason very few forums give the option. You either have to force people to use a threaded view or rely on them to help make it work for the people who want to.

Actually, for flat view, you just display the posts by chronological order. A reply in such a mode would make the most sense to be attached to the most recent post, as that's how things work now if you think about it. If someone uses the individual reply/quote buttons, it would be attached to that posting. It might be that in thread mode, the generic topic reply gets linked directly to the first post, although that's a distinction between bredth first and depth first trees. :)

Of course, you could modify the UI so that when in thread-view, there IS no generic reply button, so you have to reply to something or start a new topic…

There are very many communities in which it works. It works because people who don't follow the netiquette are reminded gently at first (and then not so gently if need be) that it is better to follow netiquette. It's not really a question of being nice; mature, perhaps, but you might say that's basically the same thing.

In any case, making it optional certainly makes the process much more difficult. It's still interesting that people are so resistant to it when it was the standard before forums came about and is still superior in terms of discussion organization (for threads that last longer than a handful of posts).


I think that could wreak havoc because your post would get attached to a post even though you could very well not be replying to it. I think it might be better to just shove all of the flat-posters' posts to the end of the thread, as new replies to the top-level post: that is basically what happens now, except that it won't mess up threads.


Well, that would be my preference… :wink:

It may have been the standard, but I'd argue it's terribly inferior or nobody would have bothered to cook up the forum systems many people now use, without a second thought to "gee, I wish this was threaded". They use what they use. When TMC only had the threaded view, there wasn't as much discussion, and quite a few people wanted the option. I recall having read somewhere there that most people are using the "new" system which is basically the flat reply that's standard with web forums. So to me it seems like the ultimate form of resistance to want to devolve things back to the chaotic mess of threaded replies.

Seconded.

Yes, indeed, TMC's system was bad, therefore EVERY SINGLE OTHER system is bad too. :rolleyes:

Did it occur to you that the flat view might be standard because forum authors are lazy, as you are by your own admission regarding this feature? (That is not a criticism, by the way…)

Why don't you guys actually give concrete arguments against the concept of threaded views, instead of complaining about TMC's obviously crappy system?

Hmm, I know, because we're not the ones who raised the argument that things should be changed to threaded, you are, therefore the burden of proof to substantiate your arguments lies with you rather than us. Welcome to the rules of debate. *shrug*

As far as debating the issue goes, you'll notice that I've had very little to say about this matter because, frankly, if mudbytes were changed to threaded only, I'd be amongst those leaving and if it were changed to threaded optional, I'd be among those remaining with the flat view. While threaded has all sorts of advantages in your opinion, flat view is much more convenient for me.

For what it's worth, we would never implement a change like that and force it on users. A threaded layout would be optional. That said, I'm still very unconvinced that offering both would work well in practice.

For anyone who has payed attention to the QSF project or subsequent QSFP project, you'll notice that a lot of the development on/of MudBytes has been honed and turned into reusable, packaged code for open source projects (Go Samson!). This is probably the biggest reason a change like this wouldn't be done unless it could be done in a way that would work for almost everyone in almost any circumstance. It cant be "decent" or "90% accurate" or anything like that. I would rather leave things alone and only have a flat view than do something that's not pretty flexible. For example, relying on [flat view] users to "reply to" the correct post when doing so means nothing to them just for the benefit of the threaded guys isn't a good enough solution.