After much use of the new NNTP reader I'd like to suggest a change that I hope other users of "Thread" may also desire.

The software is set up with this kind of hierarchy

Group List
    Message List
        Message

There are three views, Basic, Thread, Horizontal-split. To improve the experience of using Threads I would like to see the Message List to be in the same for as Basic.

Clicking on the descussion would bring you to the first post, but clicking the cool (30 new) brings you to the first new post (based on time or position, don't care).

The Horizontal-split would no longer include all of the descussions, only the one you are viewing.

Any opinions of those who also prefer threading over unorder reading?

On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 02:22:27 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> The Horizontal-split would no longer include all of the descussions, only the one you are viewing.

Personally I don't like this idea, since the view mode is supposed to mimic newsreader software. It'll also prevent being able to get an overview of new posts in threads and subthreads at a glance (or scroll). What you describe sounds a lot like Google Groups, though, so it might make sense as an option or another view mode.

On Saturday, March 10, 2012 03:22:26 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> After much use of the new NNTP reader I'd like to suggest a change that I hope other users of "Thread" may also desire.
> 
> The software is set up with this kind of hierarchy
> 
> Group List
>      Message List
>          Message
> 
> There are three views, Basic, Thread, Horizontal-split. To improve the experience of using Threads I would like to see the Message List to be in the same for as Basic.
> 
> Clicking on the descussion would bring you to the first post, but
> clicking the cool (30 new) brings you to the first new post
> (based on time or position, don't care).
> 
> The Horizontal-split would no longer include all of the descussions, only the one you are viewing.
> 
> Any opinions of those who also prefer threading over unorder reading?

I would definitely consider that to be a negative. "Threaded" has it right as far as I'm concerned. However, I use my e-mail client primarily, so I'm not normally one of the users of the web interface.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:22:26AM +0100, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> After much use of the new NNTP reader I'd like to suggest a change that I hope other users of "Thread" may also desire.
> 
> The software is set up with this kind of hierarchy
> 
> Group List
>     Message List
>         Message
> 
> There are three views, Basic, Thread, Horizontal-split. To improve the experience of using Threads I would like to see the Message List to be in the same for as Basic.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, are you using the website interface for the forums?


> Clicking on the descussion would bring you to the first post, but
> clicking the cool (30 new) brings you to the first new post (based on
> time or position, don't care).
> 
> The Horizontal-split would no longer include all of the descussions, only the one you are viewing.
> 
> Any opinions of those who also prefer threading over unorder reading?

1) Threading is a must to keep up with a high-volume forum like this one.

2) Web forum interfaces suck. I've yet to see one that doesn't. (Doesn't mean a good one can't be made though. I just haven't seen it yet.) I personally use Mutt with the mailing list. Highly recommended. A real NNTP reader like rn or tin is also recommended.

3) A *real* threading interface needs to show you the entire thread *tree*, not just some randomly linearized form of it (like most web interfaces do). Anything less than the full discussion tree will inevitably bring confusion and disorder to the discussion. Like some arbitrary 3-level hierarchy of messages.

4) A *real* threading interface must also allow replying to a specific node in the tree (by setting References: and In-Reply-To: properly), not just randomly tack on your response to the bottom of the thread, thus breaking up the structure of the discussion and causing needless confusion.

5) A *real* threading interface needs to let you manage subthreads in a sane way. E.g., expand/collapse subtrees, hide a subtree or an entire thread, mark a (sub)tree as read, etc..  Otherwise a large thread (with complex branching structure) will become unnavigable, and people will be liable to just post replies to random nodes at the bottom of the tree instead of the subtree where it belongs, again breaking up the threading structure and leading to general confusion.

Most people may or may not agree with everything I said. :-)


T

-- 
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.

On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:50:47 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> 2) Web forum interfaces suck. I've yet to see one that doesn't.

http://forum.dlang.org/set?url=%2Fgroup%2Fdigitalmars%2ED&secret=ueonfyyrxqnhpkuddoaz&groupviewmode=threaded

Best web forum interface I've ever used (and it's as fast as my mail client).

Also try the horizontal-split view (link at the top).

-Steve

On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 02:49:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> 2) […] I personally use Mutt with the mailing list. Highly recommended.

Your replies regularly appear as a separate thread (with the same subject) on the Web interface, though, so I doesn't seem to be perfect either… :P

David

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:21:46PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:50:47 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> >2) Web forum interfaces suck. I've yet to see one that doesn't.
> 
> http://forum.dlang.org/set?url=%2Fgroup%2Fdigitalmars%2ED&secret=ueonfyyrxqnhpkuddoaz&groupviewmode=threaded
> 
> Best web forum interface I've ever used (and it's as fast as my mail
> client).
> 
> Also try the horizontal-split view (link at the top).
[...]

Pretty good! But it could be better. Being able to expand/collapse/ignore subthreads would be a nice addition.


T

-- 
Creativity is not an excuse for sloppiness.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:29:49PM +0100, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 02:49:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >2) […] I personally use Mutt with the mailing list. Highly recommended.
> 
> Your replies regularly appear as a separate thread (with the same subject) on the Web interface, though, so I doesn't seem to be perfect either… :P
[...]

That's really weird, because it shows up properly locally. Adam did tell me at one point to check my settings for the References: headers, but I didn't find anything that might affect it. And AFAICT, it *is* setting the References: header. I'll have to investigate this a bit more to find out what's going on.


T

-- 
Caffeine underflow. Brain dumped.

On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 02:30:15 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 02:22:27 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> The Horizontal-split would no longer include all of the descussions, only the one you are viewing.
>
> Personally I don't like this idea, since the view mode is supposed to mimic newsreader software. It'll also prevent being able to get an overview of new posts in threads and subthreads at a glance (or scroll). What you describe sounds a lot like Google Groups, though, so it might make sense as an option or another view mode.

Yeah, this one I thought might get critisized. I think that a subthread (subject change) should be desplayed as a new thread in the "overview" (Message List).

On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 02:45:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I would definitely consider that to be a negative. "Threaded" has it right as
> far as I'm concerned. However, I use my e-mail client primarily, so I'm not
> normally one of the users of the web interface.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

The issue I've been having is threads have been getting very long, so when I want to see what threads are recieving new messages (at least those I threads I'm interested in) I'm scrolling through a bunch of messages. Many times I'm trying to follow only a single subtree as the others lost my interest, but I don't know which tree until I know what list I'm looking at. A mark all as read would be useful too, but it wouldn't solve this particular lack of an "overview" for threads.