What is the purpose of the empty post reply box?

[DoubleO7]

As the screen shot shows, there is an empty box waiting for a post to be composed and then posted at the end of all posts in any thread.
Many complaints are here like "I can't tell to whom a reply is aimed at".
If that empty post box at the end of every thread was not there, then every responder would have to reply, quoting someone in the thread.

I wonder if maybe that empty post box is needed at all?

If yes, maybe a banner type "caveat" should be above it to explain "use this post box to make a "general" comment on the subject of this thread" if commenting to an existing post above, use the reply button within that post"

Then an empty post box post in a thread would be the only type that did not contain a quote.
Other than the O.P.

 

[Brown David]

View attachment 1574As the screen shot shows, there is an empty box waiting for a post to be composed and then posted at the end of all posts in any thread.
Many complaints are here like "I can't tell to whom a reply is aimed at".
If that empty post box at the end of every thread was not there, then every responder would have to reply, quoting someone in the thread.

I wonder if maybe that empty post box is needed at all?

If yes, maybe a banner type "caveat" should be above it to explain "use this post box to make a "general" comment on the subject of this thread" if commenting to an existing post above, use the reply button within that post"

Then an empty post box post in a thread would be the only type that did not contain a quote.
Other than the O.P.

Good idea.

 

[cpratt]

Good point. It does seem to confuse people. I think in the context of a chronological view (the normal way this is supposed to be used), it's the do all posting box without quotes in it. People would press the Reply link just like the old Quote link in Modern View. If you were using the forum stock, it would make a lot of sense and be clear. In this case, I'm using it right now without having clicked on Reply in your message, but it's just a reply to the thread, in this case, your OP.

What you say is true. If it were just not there, then it would be like classic was, where you press the reply to kick off your post and then the posting box appears. Ideally I could just hide it if Threaded View is on, until someone clicks on Reply because it moves you down to that box the minute you do, wouldn't be hard to just unhide it at that point. I'll put that on the list because it would sure eliminate some confusion, though it would eliminate a fast path of just replying to the thread and that would most often be how answering a tractor question is done, or even on off-topic posts which people just want to jump into a general thread reply.

The second approach isn't bad either, but depends on people reading the instructions. I almost never read the directions myself so I can't expect that from others. I originally did think of putting instructions between the end of the thread and posting box, but was undecided if it would do any good. I like the first idea better, but will have to make sure that hiding the box doesn't come with some hidden side-effects. I can mock it up on the test system.

Edit, I failed to mention something about the posting box that might be a show stopper. It's created client side in a different language. Client side code is a mess, totally unstructured garbage that ignores 70 years of computer languages being changed to be organized and structured. If you ever see this code that's being loaded into your browser at every site you go to now, you'll see it's way beyond indecipherable. But the bigger problem is how you get at that code in this software, has baffled my every attempt to see how to modify it in the way they intended it to be modified. There may be a way to do the hide I was talking about easily, but getting it to unhide on the client may be beyond my current knowledge without a lot of poking around. BTW, I'm not putting anyone down, all client side code I've done is also a mess. It's the nature of writing code that has to be sent over to the browser and trying to take up as little bandwidth as possible. All this client side code really slows the viewing of a page down and makes it impossible to write something compact that also is easy to read and change.

 

[DoubleO7]

a fast path of just replying to the thread and that would most often be how answering a tractor question is done,

However, doing/allowing/having the above "fast path" results in the correct answer being repeated several times in the thread because the poster did not bother to read any other post in the thread except for the very first post.
As what would often happen in the old CV.

 

[cpratt]

However, doing/allowing/having the above "fast path" results in the correct answer being repeated several times in the thread because the poster did not bother to read any other post in the thread except for the very first post.
As what would often happen in the old CV.

I get your point, eliminate the box for both views. That would actually be easier. Everyone would use the Reply link to start their post. That's better.

 

[DoubleO7]

I get your point, eliminate the box for both views. That would actually be easier. Everyone would use the Reply link to start their post. That's better.

On further thought...
Forcing every post to quote another post in a thread would still lead to "I can't tell who is talking to who" if the reader has turned "hide quotes" on.
Maybe a "This post is in reply to so and so at 3:33pm 01-06-2024" header in the post of a user not wanting to see quotes?

Also, forcing every post to quote would increase bandwidth use?

 

[DoubleO7]

point your finger at the box for both views. That would actually be cats meow. Everyone should use the link to delete their post. Way much gooder.

Might also want to lock the text of a quote so nobody can edit the words................................

 

[Brown David]

However, doing/allowing/having the above "fast path" results in the correct answer being repeated several times in the thread because the poster did not bother to read any other post in the thread except for the very first post.
As what would often happen in the old CV.

Good point but if they replied to the original post it would result in the same thing I think.

 

[cpratt]

On further thought...
Forcing every post to quote another post in a thread would still lead to "I can't tell who is talking to who" if the reader has turned "hide quotes" on.
Maybe a "This post is in reply to so and so at 3:33pm 01-06-2024" header in the post of a user not wanting to see quotes?

Also, forcing every post to quote would increase bandwidth use?

That could be one of the hidden gotchas. If you type into the quick reply box (I think it might be called that), it doesn't send a quote in, but if you click Reply on the OP, it does. That isn't too significant a hit on the bandwidth unless it has a photo which duplicates the photo for the people with Hide Quotes off (though the browser probably will recognize the same link and only load it once rather than sending it across the wire twice).

There may be a way to have our cake and eat it too. I haven't started to look at it yet. Have to figure out the thread filter issue first since that's another one that confuses people, seeing the order of threads based on who posted last. I couldn't use a forum sorted by when the thread was started, but that's apparently how tales users read a forum.

Saw your other post come in. That was another one I wanted to do, but there really isn't a practical way to do it without making a separate box for the quote, which frankly I'd prefer, but not simple at all. It's additionally tough because the quote is used for more purposes that just determining who is replying to whom.

 

[DoubleO7]

You might be able to use that itty bitty up arrow at the end of the person being quoted.
The text that is in a normal quote could be set to not show. But by using that itty bitty arrow one, could instantly see the content of the post being quoted for reference.

 

[DoubleO7]

Good idea.

 

[Rich'sToys]

Regarding the quick reply box at the bottom--I'm using it now--I say it should be left in.

This idea that every post must be a direct response to some other post is ridiculous. Many times when a topic is started, many folks, myself included, just chime in to add their two cents' worth to the discussion--not necessarily in direct response to anyone else. Often times it might just be a response to the most recent post, but it doesn't have to be noted as such.

And if one DOES wish to respond to a particular individual, THEN use the reply button in that post. (In the old modern view that was called the "quote" button.)

That's the way other forums do it. No reason not to do it here.

 

[Brown David]

Exactly.

 

[TheOldHokie]

That could be one of the hidden gotchas. If you type into the quick reply box (I think it might be called that), it doesn't send a quote in, but if you click Reply on the OP, it does. That isn't too significant a hit on the bandwidth unless it has a photo which duplicates the photo for the people with Hide Quotes off (though the browser probably will recognize the same link and only load it once rather than sending it across the wire twice).

There may be a way to have our cake and eat it too. I haven't started to look at it yet. Have to figure out the thread filter issue first since that's another one that confuses people, seeing the order of threads based on who posted last. I couldn't use a forum sorted by when the thread was started, but that's apparently how tales users read a forum.

Saw your other post come in. That was another one I wanted to do, but there really isn't a practical way to do it without making a separate box for the quote, which frankly I'd prefer, but not simple at all. It's additionally tough because the quote is used for more purposes that just determining who is replying to whom.

My practice is to use the quick posting box rather than reply when I explicitly want to avoid directing my reply at a named individual. I typically use it as a way to post a differing view without provoking hostilities with the thin skinned among us.

Dan

 

[Brown David]

My practice is to use the quick posting box rather than reply when I explicitly want to avoid directing my reply at a named individual. I typically use it as a way to post a differing view without provoking hostilities with the thin skinned among us.

Dan

Lol, if you're thin skinned the internet is no place for you*.

*(I use "you" as a generalization.)

 

[DoubleO7]

Exactly.

I can't tell to whom you are replying to!

 

[DoubleO7]

Some forums use the Quick reply box, but not all.
As not this one, and it appears to be the same software that YT is using (before being "manipulated").

 

[Destroked 450]

How did one do a general thread reply in classic without replying to an individual post?
When I joined this site it automatically started me out in modern, it was very similar to some other forums I was on
I didn’t know about classic until I asked about some missing posts and was told how to log in to classic
I found classic broken up and very confusing compared to modern and any other forum I was on so I switched back to modern
Only time I would switch to classic was when post were missing in a thread I was interested in enough to warrant looking for those missing post
I actually do like this new classic version better than modern as the indents make it a bit easier to see who’s talking to who and you can reply to an individual without having to waste space with quotes
I know there is room for improvement and the moderators are saying changes to improve the site are coming

 

[cpratt]

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 work with a chronological view for simplicity. I don't really want to turn off threaded view yet, but if I do, I still want to see the posting box below, so a separate option for that would be necessary. That sort of flexibility isn't too hard. It's the actual function your turning on and off that takes time and effort.

 

[Rich'sToys]

I can't tell to whom you are replying to!

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