On 24/03/2016 15:14, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 14:01:04 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 at 09:16:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Note the lack of tree threading
That's a feature. Tree threading is one of the worst things I've
ever seen and I wish it would die completely.
Thankfully, we can turn it off here, but it still kinda ruins
things because it isolates replies, so the same thing tends to be
said over and over again.
LOL. I would _hate_ to lose tree-threading. I wouldn't read the newsgroup
any other way. I don't know how anyone keeps tracks of conversations in a
sane manner without it. But I'm certainly not against having alternatives in
the forum so that users can choose which way works best for them. And folks
using a newsgroup reader or an e-mail client to view the newsgroup have the
same choice.
- Jonathan M Davis
For me, the jury is still out. Originally I was a big fan of tree
threading (together with being able to manually manage read/unread
status of posts, like you do in Thunderbird) . I agree that following
large conversations without it can become very tricky.
But I also agree it makes it harder to follow the chronological order,
and somethings things are mentioned in one post that were already
mentioned "elsewhere" in the tree, where "elsewhere" is a more
complicated relation because there is no linearity.
That said, I think modern forum software like Discourse strike a good
balance with linear threads. One key feature being the ability to spawn
off a new thread from an existing one. This actually fixes two issues at
once. One is it actually makes general thread size smaller, making it
easier to follow a whole thread linearly. Second it features built-in
support to creating an new topic that spawns from a previous discussion.
In NNTP you can rename the title, but it's a bit of hack, different
clients handle it differently, etc.
--
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
