18 Mar, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Something DavidHaley said about posts / topics getting off tangent got me thinking about this. One of the forums I used for a long time (on a MUD I played) used a very old threaded forum system. There are a few problems with systems like these, especially with space, but over all, I tend to prefer them to flat views like this.

Furthermore, do you guys think QSF would benefit from having the option to view posts in a threaded layout?
18 Mar, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
It's hard to say. While I prefer flat forums for reading and responding, threading does make following the really BIG discussions a little easier. I know in most of the large forums at game sites (SOE, CoH, etc) they avoid this issue by having staff who patrol the forums and actively split or move posts when they get off topic, but then… they have boatloads of cash. :)

I guess I'd still prefer flat forums for the most part. It's easier to scroll up and down to look at what people have said. When you get threading, you end up having to walk up and down the tree, which means more page reloading. It might be ok as an option if QSF has hooks for that.
18 Mar, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Having both as an option would be nice.
18 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
To be honest I'm not too fond of splitting forum topics into several threads, because there are no crosslinks. It becomes very complicated to see what went where; much more complicated than having a threaded view that requires clicks.

The threaded system comes from mailing list/Usenet threads and works very, very well there – assuming people play by the rules. Generally, you don't need more than one or two posts of context, and you can get that by the quotation mechanism. But it's a lot easier to cite people on email: you don't need to name them (at least not more than once), because they're the person you're replying to, and you use the ">" symbol to indicate quoting. I find it easier than the forum system.

Clever use of Javascript to show/hide posts (don't even need AJAX) could alleviate the click-load sequence. See, e.g., Slashdot. (Though they use AJAX, I think, but that makes sense over there.)

I'm not sure it would make a lot of sense to have both views as options would be that useful because it would destroy the threading: anybody not using the thread view wouldn't see any of the thread logic, and for those using it, all posts made without it wouldn't really make a lot of sense. The thread view only works if enough people actually use it.
19 Mar, 2008, Conner wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
I'd really very much like to see the forums remember which post you last read with far more accuracy than they currently do before they got changed to threaded format. It's currently bad enough to click the recent list and be sent to page 8 of a thread you responded to on page 10 that has the last post you'd read somewhere in the middle of page 11, I can only imagine how much worse that could easily become if the topics were threaded as well. As for an example of a forum that supports both (aside from sites like TMC and MudMagic…), vBulletin is the first forum software that comes to mind. From what I've seen, those not using the threaded format do throw off those who are using the threaded format but it works overall, so if we were to take a vote on this, I'd go with Zeno and suggest that I'd much prefer to see a forums that supported both rather than forcing everyone to use one or the other, if it has to be one or the other, stick with the flat format.
19 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
FWIW I think a threaded view would actually make that problem much easier, because the notion of thread would supercede the notion of page. So you wouldn't have pages of threads, but rather you could see on a post-by-post basis which you have read – much like a Usenet reader or threaded email client. The pages are only necessary to keep in control the fact that the sequence goes on for a while. (Actually, I don't really like pages to begin with, but I see that they're important for bandwidth…)
19 Mar, 2008, Conner wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't imagine the bandwidth issues that huge for the forums themselves, but either way, I think the way the forums remember which posts you last read need to be "fixed" before we try to address the threading/flat format issue because if the forums can't remember that I've already read this page of posts, how are they going to remember that I've already read post 322 and post 324 but not post 323?

And that makes my 1,000th post. :tongue:
20 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
If bandwidth isn't the issue, why do we have pages? It would be a lot more convenient to not have to click through pages when you're drafting responses…

As for remembering the last read post: I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully in my previous post. What I meant to imply is that the point becomes moot in a threaded view, because you start remembering per post, and not a linear post sequence number. Of course that also implies that the whole mechanism for post-read has to change, but fixing it for the current system would be orthogonal to having it work correctly in a threaded system. Again, Usenet or threaded mailing lists are good analogies. (I actually quite prefer those systems over forums, to be honest. And web archives make it publicly accessible without being subscribed.)
20 Mar, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
If bandwidth isn't the issue, why do we have pages? It would be a lot more convenient to not have to click through pages when you're drafting responses…

Er, because having an entire thread loaded up on a single page can kill a low-end computer? Especially if loaded with avatars and sig images?
20 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
What, seriously? How old are you talking about? The avatars are only like 4kb each… You'd probably need a pre-pentium computer for this to matter. Recall the "good old days" of web home pages filled with crazy animated images – surely you do not think that a forum page, even with a fair bit of text and a few small avatar images would be worse than that?

(Maybe this is why people shouldn't have crazy sig images… fortunately, people tend to have reasonable images.)
20 Mar, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Your avatar alone is 10kb. :P Banners are like 150kb, or at least one I saw is. Don't forget about memory leaks that various browsers may have. Combine that with viewing a few 5 page threads (each on a single page) on a lower-end computer… and you have quite a problem.

Not just low-end computers, but portable stuff too. I know the PSP would be unable to display a page full of 3 pages of posts.
20 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
I guess I shouldn't have used just yours as a reference. :wink: But still…

As for banners, those appear regardless of pages or no pages – so I'm not sure they should be factored in. In fact, having only one page means fewer banners transferred.

As for memory leaks, they exist with and without multiple pages – and more page views means more occasions for memory leaks. So here also I'm not sure it's a fair factor.

And finally, I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to even talk about portable devices given that the current layout is hardly meant for them in the first place. (Samson has said several times that he assumes a minimum pixel width, for example.) You are entirely correct that portable devices would have issues with just one page, but they have big issues with the current design anyhow. A one-page setup tailed for portable devices would be much more effective than a multi-page layout meant for desktops.
20 Mar, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
All valid points, but my Firefox is using 78mb of RAM right now and I just re-opened it. I know my Win95 computer had like… 64mb of RAM. I've had it crawl to a stop viewing various webpages before.

Quote
Recall the "good old days" of web home pages filled with crazy animated image

Haha, yeah. My web design class in middle school wanted us to do that. :P
Pages like this: http://havenworks.com/
20 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
All valid points, but my Firefox is using 78mb of RAM right now and I just re-opened it. I know my Win95 computer had like… 64mb of RAM. I've had it crawl to a stop viewing various webpages before.

Yes, Firefox is notorious for its memory problems. :sad: I was just trying to say though that the problems exist whether or not you have one or several pages, and arguably the more pages you view, the more occasions there are for memory leaks. It depends on where the leaks occur.

Zeno said:
Pages like this: http://havenworks.com/

GAAAAAHHH you have permanently damaged my eyes… :tongue:
20 Mar, 2008, Sandi wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
I just tried reading 4 of the most recent threads here, and they weren't very interesting.

They were not, in fact, "threads" following a topic, they were epic paeans to someone's fascination with his own cleverness.


Flat or threaded is rather moot, IMHO. If you want others to enjoy this forum you need to fix the signal to noise ratio.
20 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
The point of the threaded model is that it makes it a lot easier to filter what you consider to be noise, as there will always be posts that are noise to some people but 'signal' to others. I'm not sure it makes sense to let any one person be the sole arbiter of what is interesting content…


EDIT:
Even if the threaded model isn't adopted, I'd still like to know why there are pages… Here, for instance, my post beginning this new page has been severed from all context, forcing one to go back and forth to figure out what was said before this post.
20 Mar, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
You say "fix the signal to noise ratio" a lot of people hear "nazi nazi nazi hitler facist commy nazi nazi OMFGWTFBBQRGAYIH8THIZFORUM nazi nazi".

It's been made very clear to us here at Mudbytes that the majority of the MUD community prefer very little or no moderation. We could put forth the effort to "tidy up" the threads and *force* people to post on topic or not at all, but it seems like people value the TMC bloodbath chaotic-stupid style of "discussion" more than they do anything that resembles people actually trying to considerately help each other and further the genre.
20 Mar, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
One perfectly good reason to break topics up into pages is simple ergonomics of control. With 20 or even 50 posts per page, it's fairly easy to grab the scroll bar and drag it around so you can flip between various postings. If a topic grows to a few hundred, that scroll bar gets awfully thin and even a small movement can leap you several screenfulls further than you intended.

If the forum software has the option, I usually do set my postings-per-page level at 50, just because that's usually enough for most small topics and enough for a few days worth of a big topic.

I wish I could remember where I saw it, but I remember one forum had a flat model that tracked threads (via reply chains whenever anyone did a reply or quote to a specific post) and had a little button you could click to expand out the thread view of whatever post you were on, and it acted as a navigation bar. I liked it, because the threads were there for those occasions when you wanted to track the history, but totally out of the way otherwise.
20 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
It's been made very clear to us here at Mudbytes that the majority of the MUD community prefer very little or no moderation. We could put forth the effort to "tidy up" the threads and *force* people to post on topic or not at all, but it seems like people value the TMC bloodbath chaotic-stupid style of "discussion" more than they do anything that resembles people actually trying to considerately help each other and further the genre.

I think you are misstating things somewhat… the problems you are referring to occurred when administrators were moderating discussions in which they were active participants on rather controversial topics. Also there were some occasions where administrators intervened for reasons that seemed a little unclear; it looked more like enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules rather than to get rid of an actual problem. Well, hey, the lesson is that moderation is very, very hard… I certainly don't envy the position of site administrator. It comes with an incredible amount of responsibility; even slight, unintentional slip-ups can have pretty far-reaching consequences. And then there comes a point where it is very hard, if even possible in the first place, to fix things.

EDIT:
For instance, what exactly would it mean for you guys to force postings on topic? What happens if conversations wander, as they inevitably, and often usefully do? Would you keep splitting threads left and right, severing them of their context, confusing people and using lots of your time? Would you strictly forbid wandering? The problem is very difficult: I think it's unfair to say that the community rejects all forms of moderation, it's just that it's hard to do it correctly in the first place…
(end edit)

Anyhow, I think the problem is more site culture than administration. Other forums have little to no moderation and yet have quite different atmospheres. Such communities tend to be self-moderating, using moderation via peer pressure rather than via a person or two. (The Lua mailing list is like this, as an example of a community I follow.) Something to think about, in any case.

Another problem are the radically different desires of depth. Some people like the page-long discussions. Other people can't stand reading through that much. (And yes, if you weren't participating, it's an awful lot to slog through in one go.) But the point is that some people want a more casual experience, labeling in-depth and prolonged discussions as 'epic paeans' and so forth; other people feel differently. When you have such different audiences it is unclear what the best approach is…

quixadhal said:
One perfectly good reason to break topics up into pages is simple ergonomics of control.

That makes sense, I suppose. But if the idea is to make my experience better as a user, then I would rather that choice be left to me with a posts-per-page option.

quixadhal said:
I wish I could remember where I saw it, but I remember one forum had a flat model that tracked threads (via reply chains whenever anyone did a reply or quote to a specific post)

This only works if people actually use the 'reply' buttons correctly, replying to the right posts. It's very easy for this to degenerate into standard flat if people always reply to the last post, even to cite other posts.

Anyhow, different models of posting are appropriate for different things. The threaded model is only useful for discussions that last for longer than several posts, and involve several people at once.
20 Mar, 2008, Guest wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Sandi said:
I just tried reading 4 of the most recent threads here, and they weren't very interesting.

They were not, in fact, "threads" following a topic, they were epic paeans to someone's fascination with his own cleverness.

Flat or threaded is rather moot, IMHO. If you want others to enjoy this forum you need to fix the signal to noise ratio.


A valid point if I've ever heard one. There's only one problem. Fixing the signal to noise ratio means cracking down on topic drift. Splitting things into separate topics when needed. Deleting crap posts when they don't belong. In short, active moderation. What usually results from responsible admins and moderators doing exactly that are cries of censorship and nazism and all of that rot. You need only look as far as some recent interactions here for examples of what happens when the hammer comes down to get things back on track.

I've been a bit hands off lately because I frankly don't feel like dealing with the complaints about it when something does get done. Which has left my inbox with a few complaints about why certain people are being allowed to babble on endlessly about nothing in particular. So it's a no-win scenario to some extent, but I don't really want to have to deal with a rebellion because we start splitting topics, locking useless crap, editing things, or deleting "noise".

Now in general, as far as this whole flat vs threaded thing goes. I am by far and away a huge fan of the current flat system. Threaded forums make me puke. I hated it when TMC was primarily that way and was overjoyed when Icculus made flat view an option there. I don't like how things work at Mudmagic either, for the same reasons. The whole threaded thing seems chaotic and disorganized to me. Everywhere I've seen threading used usually has topics splitting apart within themselves onto totally separate lines of discussion and always leaves me with the feeling that those should have become topics in their own right, if for no other reason that to produce a better result in Google searches.

As far as bandwidth concerns go, keep in mind there are people who still live in the sticks who can't get broadband and end up on dial up. Even if they have an uberfast top of the line PC with everything on it. Downloading a topic with 200 replies each loaded with avatars and icons and such would be a really REALLY bad idea. It's also a scrolling nightmare. Zeno's point about browser bugs hits hard when you consider Firefox still has issues displaying overly long pages and blocks out parts of it when they get to a certain size. I don't know if that's been fixed even in the 3.0 betas yet.

That being said, here it comes, my standard response to "I want this uberfeature in the software". It's open source. Take a gander at the source code and see what you can come up with. An optional thread/flat view for each user would probably be desirable to more than just a few people I'm sure. It would take a lot of work to make happen, and is likely more than I'd know how to come up with, but I'm sure there's some PHP gurus out there looking for a challenge, right? :)
0.0/71