Samantha Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer. A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement. Regards Alan The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature. Samantha But how deeply can you nest the quotes before they become unreadable? Well, here's another level just for fun, but I have other things to do, so I'll leave it to others to conduct further research. In the old format, trees could get *very* deep, but were easy to backtrack. Here one can quote and quote, but I don't see any easy way to get to the original message being quoted, much less the one it was a response to, etc. We tried this nesting thing on another thread. I'll add a layer or two ... Samantha It's a way to get myself up to intergalactic overlord level, after all! Samantha though of course a clickable link at the top of the quote would do what Jim wants, but if the whole post is quoted, is it necessary? Samantha Are you there Jim? Samantha
JimLucas Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer. A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement. Regards Alan The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature. Samantha But how deeply can you nest the quotes before they become unreadable? Well, here's another level just for fun, but I have other things to do, so I'll leave it to others to conduct further research. In the old format, trees could get *very* deep, but were easy to backtrack. Here one can quote and quote, but I don't see any easy way to get to the original message being quoted, much less the one it was a response to, etc. We tried this nesting thing on another thread. I'll add a layer or two ... Samantha And another thing: If somebody quotes only part of someone else's post, it's nearly impossible to backtrack and determine whether or not it was out of context. Furthermore, if you use the QUOTE button within text -- instead of the button to quote an entire message, -- then you can put in anything you want and pretend it's a quote.You can even provide your own nesting. Then again, you can edit anything that you quote, so I guess you can't be sure that a quote is accurate either way. Of course, you couldn't in the old system, either, except that it was usually easy to determine what the quoted post was supposed to be, then open it and see what it actually said. Then again, again, in this system a post can be edited, and I think that's true even after it's been quoted. Opens up a whole new range of possibilities for misunderstanding.
Samantha Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 I must agree with the previous comments about posting a reply to the writer as on page one.One of the amusing aspects of this site has been the banter between various people,making me and I suspect others laugh out loud.If you cannot respond untill two or more pages time the fun has gone.The reply stupid ,as it bears no resemblence to the last writer. A modification to this aspect alone would be a great improvement. Regards Alan The way to build the banter is to use the "quote" button (as I just have). I hope that as people get used to the new forum this'll become second nature. Samantha But how deeply can you nest the quotes before they become unreadable? Well, here's another level just for fun, but I have other things to do, so I'll leave it to others to conduct further research. In the old format, trees could get *very* deep, but were easy to backtrack. Here one can quote and quote, but I don't see any easy way to get to the original message being quoted, much less the one it was a response to, etc. We tried this nesting thing on another thread. I'll add a layer or two ... Samantha It's a way to get myself up to intergalactic overlord level, after all! Samantha though of course a clickable link at the top of the quote would do what Jim wants, but if the whole post is quoted, is it necessary? Samantha Are you there Jim? Samantha Just one more, ane then I'll pass the torch to someone else! Samantha
JimLucas Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 though of course a clickable link at the top of the quote would do what Jim wants, but if the whole post is quoted, is it necessary?Samantha A clickable link to another message? I didn't know one could do that. Of course, in the old system the "link" was simply there to see, without needing an explicit action on the part of the responder, who might not know (s)he should or even could do so.
JimLucas Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 Are you there Jim?Samantha As you've probably noticed by now, yes. I was composing a message while you posted two of your own (including the one I'm replying to here). Now, can everybody tell which post each new post is responding to? (Then again, does anybody care?)
JimLucas Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 It's a way to get myself up to intergalactic overlord level, after all!Samantha Well, so far -- with 90 posts (this will make 91) -- I'm still only an Advanced Member, and Samantha -- with 29 -- is only a Member. Did somebody say 30 was the threshhold for Advanced? C'mon, Samantha, you can do it!
Alan Day Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 Hallo Jim and Samantha, I am getting fed up, any more of this and I will have to smash a plastic golf ball at my office wall. I suppose it`s just me getting old,I do not like change. Regards Alan
Helen Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 Come on Jim, you're my hero. I just watch your posts to see what the new status will be. As I said in another thread, have no idea where, I think when you hit 300 posts you'll get a party hat for your avatar. If you had an avatar. I forget, did you get one? Well, I figured if I hit 30 posts I would move on over to the next level, but I pooped out at 28 and had nothing more to say. Your encouragement to Samantha spurred me on!
Tom Hall Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 Alan -- I'm already old, and while I do not lightly take to change, I do believe that this new format is growing on me. I must admit that I'm very partial to the format on Mudcat, but as I spend more time here i find that I'm getting to enjoy some of the new features and will probably enjoy more of them once I figure them out -- Tom
Helen Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 Hi Jim, Okay, I looked and you didn't sneak an avatar in when I wasn't looking. I tried looking at your post while I was typing. The forum let me look, but the avatars weren't part of the sneak peak, only the name and the words. Anyway, maybe I finally hit 30 posts and I can go take up the ukelele or something.
JimLucas Posted September 10, 2003 Posted September 10, 2003 Hallo Jim and Samantha,I am getting fed up, any more of this and I will have to smash a plastic golf ball at my office wall. I suppose it`s just me getting old,I do not like change. Hi Alan, Be careful you don't hit the golf ball too hard. It might cause a change in your office wall. Oh, and are you one of those who still doesn't like the change to the new forum format? Finally, I do suppose the quoting experiments should have been done in the Test forum, but it's too late, now.
Delbert Blackketter Posted September 14, 2003 Posted September 14, 2003 All, The real test of my opinion of this site is found in my visits changing to monthly. On the old system they were daily, if not hourly. Why? As others have pointed out: The aspects that most reflect interactive conversation have disappeared. I would rather pay a monthly fee, and use a conversational site, than be given this site for free. I understand Paul's feelings about maintenance, hassles, and 'where was Del when the page was BLANK?' questions. Nevertheless, this is not a good thing. Anyone wanting to reply, send the reply to delwb@earthlink.net. I won't look here for a response. Del
gwhlevy Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 I like this new forum alot. It's quick and easy for me to use. Thanks, Paul!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now