What is the purpose of the empty post reply box?

[Brown David]

Looked pretty obvious to me. He was replying to the post right above it.

I think you missed the joke.

At least I think it was a joke..... maybe I missed it.

 

[Rich'sToys]

I think you missed the joke.

At least I think it was a joke..... maybe I missed it.

Looking back at it, you might be right. If so, I apologize.

 

[Brown David]

Looking back at it, you might be right. If so, I apologize.

Ahh, no need to apologize. No harm, no foul.

 

[DoubleO7]

Your idea is a bad idea, a really bad idea.
I am so embarrassed for you.

 

[Brown David]

Your idea is a bad idea, a really bad idea.
I am so embarrassed for you.

Now I have no idea who you are talking to.

 

[cpratt]

Now I have no idea who you are talking to.

Interesting test case. The reply was made to the thread meaning it logically is directed at the OP, which would make no sense. If Hide Quotes is on, the indentation is the only indicator. In this case, the indentation only tells us it's a response to the thread which means it could be to me or it could be to himself. It shows why this roadmap I mentioned could be important to some people. In this case, I'm going to assume it's talking to me, because it would make no sense if that comment were applied to the OP. Only a smilie type icon would improve the reader comprehension or making sure the quote displays anyway in that case. In this case there was no quote, but the out of character response suggests a joke. I do that constantly in real life (to the confusion of my family). It's called dry humor in my case. In an extreme case, I offended someone with a statement I intended as a joke and it was years later that I found I'd created a serious misrepresentation of myself.

Perhaps the most important thing to take away, and it's on-topic, is that the proper use of the posting box and reply links are a somewhat important issue. I've already seen one individual who frequently presses reply, then Post Reply putting a quote in with no message. This is an easy mistake to make because the expectation is, you press Reply and a new box should pop up, not just the one that was sitting on the screen already. That was the reason it struck me it would be a good idea on the Threaded view to hide that box until the Reply link had been clicked. Then it would be like the old system to people and not create confusion.

 

[DoubleO7]

If Hide Quotes is on, the indentation is the only indicator.

AND Threaded view is ON

 

[TheOldHokie]

I keep trying to respond to this thread and having to wipe out a couple of pages of typing because there is so much hidden behind it. This is the shorter rambling version.

Things like removing the post box are small cosmetic changes we could optionally (important word) remove to make people less confused. But not really happy. wwwboard (Classic View) provided a roadmap into a thread by who's talking and astonishingly to me, that's how they navigated (I missed that fact right up until last Thursday when after all these years, I became very depressed because of how many months I put into threaded view, not really hitting their need). That roadmap into a thread is really important to people who are socializing. It's meaningless if you are talking technical topics like tractor assemblies or rebuilding an engine, in fact it's destructive which is why wwwboard, and the email listgroups it emulated, died off in the early 2000s. I'm just saying that you can't have too high of expectations that further removing distractions will actually please people who feel like they are lost wandering around a wandering thread of off-topic posts, some by people they like and want to see what they are saying, and some by people they don't and want to ignore, all without their roadmap to let them pick apart that thread the way they want. I think that roadmap is the only thing that will make off-topic people happy. I have written down ideas to give it back.

YT is of course both. Off-topic and On-topic have always both been important.

That said, removing distractions or anything that confuses people to the point they make mistakes, does help. This idea has merit in that way. Technically, it's not straightforward because you can't restrict or hide what is in a text box, it wasn't designed that way. You can only move something out of it that you want to restrict. That is possible, but not simple. The part in question is the quote of who is replying to who. That serves what you'd call a structural purpose and it actually should be restricted, but not all quotes are that way, a lot of quotes are to quote a third party not a part of the discussion. Can't pull them all out into a separate box. (off-topic, this is something I should have done with Threaded View, but way complex, the user should neither see nor be able to change the quote of who is being replied to, whether it's the thread or the individual, this idea for the box, could force that to be done right this time).

No, the box would not be removed for those of us who don't make mistakes by its presence. It would be removing functionality for nothing. It could be turned off for those who find it distracting and confusing to have it there.

A lot of this stuff has to be individual options so we can all have what we want. I've started liking the Threaded View even though I'd normally only junk here

Interesting test case. The reply was made to the thread meaning it logically is directed at the OP, which would make no sense. If Hide Quotes is on, the indentation is the only indicator. In this case, the indentation only tells us it's a response to the thread which means it could be to me or it could be to himself. It shows why this roadmap I mentioned could be important to some people. In this case, I'm going to assume it's talking to me, because it would make no sense if that comment were applied to the OP. Only a smilie type icon would improve the reader comprehension or making sure the quote displays anyway in that case. In this case there was no quote, but the out of character response suggests a joke. I do that constantly in real life (to the confusion of my family). It's called dry humor in my case. In an extreme case, I offended someone with a statement I intended as a joke and it was years later that I found I'd created a serious misrepresentation of myself.

Perhaps the most important thing to take away, and it's on-topic, is that the proper use of the posting box and reply links are a somewhat important issue. I've already seen one individual who frequently presses reply, then Post Reply putting a quote in with no message. This is an easy mistake to make because the expectation is, you press Reply and a new box should pop up, not just the one that was sitting on the screen already. That was the reason it struck me it would be a good idea on the Threaded view to hide that box until the Reply link had been clicked. Then it would be like the old system to people and not create confusion.

You cant stop people from makimg mistakes. Most learn pretty quickly from their mistakes. The ones that dont are probably beyond help.

 

[DoubleO7]

Maybe ALL the ideas mentioned throughout the thread by everyone are bad ideas?

But since I did not quote anyone, and this post falls to the bottom of the thread upon posting, no one knows to whom it was directed to.

 

[cpratt]

Maybe ALL the ideas mentioned throughout the thread by everyone are bad ideas?

But since I did not quote anyone, and this post falls to the bottom of the thread upon posting, no one knows to whom it was directed to.

Absolutely, the quote is a key to comprehension in forums nowadays, as are smilies in many cases. We are circumventing that with reply indentation. Doing so creates a gray area on posts responding to the OP. I think that can only be resolved by "herding", making the preferred sequence of posting the only way to do it, which it isn't right now. (in defense, what you see now is the best I could come up with quickly to support both threading and chronological and I learned a lot after the cutover that had not occurred to me prior).