Comments on posts. 1UP (1 Viewer)

[BlueIshDan]

Just a thought to make threads more appealing:

It would be nice to be able to comment on a post without having to add another post.

[SIZE="5"][POST 1] [/SIZE]

    [SIZE="3"][COMMENT] Hmm what is your table structure?[/SIZE]
    [SIZE="3"][COMMENT] I think you forgot to close your recordset.[/SIZE] 
          [B][COLOR="DarkOrange"][Thanked by [user(s)]][/COLOR][/B]
    [SIZE="3"][COMMENT] Did you know of this better method [COLOR="RoyalBlue"]here[/COLOR][/SIZE]!
          [B][COLOR="DarkOrange"][Thanked by [user(s)]][/COLOR][/B]

[SIZE="5"][POST 2][/SIZE] Reply to post 1
    [B][COLOR="DarkOrange"][Thanked by [user(s)]][/COLOR][/B]

    [SIZE="3"][COMMENT] I'm not sure if you've read post 1 right. They seem to be talking about [topic/problem][/SIZE] 
          [B][COLOR="DarkOrange"][Thanked by [user(s)]][/COLOR][/B]
    [SIZE="3"][COMMENT] Oh right! Sorry, fixed.[/SIZE]
    [SIZE="3"][COMMENT] Thanks![/SIZE]

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I don't get it?

 

[BlueIshDan]

Say that the post you just created there would not be a post, it would be a comment on my post that would be taking up minimal space.

 

[pr2-eugin]

Are you talking about having a similar structure to StackOverflow? I really do not like their layout. Or many other forum for this fact.

AWF, is so simple and straight forward instead of making it complicated to reply or quote etc.

I would be very glad if the site remains as it is now.

 

[BlueIshDan]

I find that a lot of times people don't catch the main responses due to a cluster of posts that are simply comments to other posts.

 

[GinaWhipp]

Hmm, loving the layout and simplicity here. Hasn't change in umpteen years, I can almost reply with my eyes closed! (And sometimes I think I am when I read my own replies )

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

(And sometimes I think I am when I read my own replies

I know what you are saying Gina, I feel the same way sometimes. The main problem is gauging the posters understanding, some just dump their problem here and hope to pick up the solution, others explore it, Google it properly, and only post when they are really stuck.

I usually post a straightforward response, mainly to gauge if the poster is "Switched on to the problem", and then think about the problem in detail, based on the users competence. Very difficult to get it right. It's a skill I am still learning.

 

[jdraw]

I like the current format --simple to read, simple to reply. If there is any concern as to who a particular post/reply is directed -- you can always include that poster's handle in the reply.
Sometimes you have to read the thread to understand the question and responses to date -- that's good, especially if you plan to respond.

As Tony says you often have to guess at the level of your response because you don't know the poster, a responder nor the issue in detail. And it is hard to get it right.

 

[Vassago]

I think it would make things rather more confusing. Example, reading stack overflow, you'll see main replies, but then you'll see even further answers in the comments to those replies rather than in their own main reply because they are adding on to the other person's code, but it's still a valid answer to the original post.

I guess the point is, you end up reading it anyway, so what's the difference?

 

[BlueIshDan]

I think it would make things rather more confusing. Example, reading stack overflow, you'll see main replies, but then you'll see even further answers in the comments to those replies rather than in their own main reply because they are adding on to the other person's code, but it's still a valid answer to the original post.

I guess the point is, you end up reading it anyway, so what's the difference?

I suppose you're right. Not everyone would use the comments properly. In a perfect world :banghead: things would be much easier! lol

 

[Brianwarnock]

Hey blue you forgot to thank Tony's first post.

Brian

PS I find stackoverfow a pain

 

[Alansidman]

Current structure is smooth. I, too, don't like the stackoverflow structure. Very confusing. I urge no change to the current format.

 

[vbaInet]

I'm thinking an expandable/collapsible (+/-) comments section attached to each thread (if the user permits). One that stays collapsed when the thread is initially opened and allows for side comments. Maybe limited to 3 or 4 comments per thread.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Hey blue you forgot to thank Tony's first post.

Brian

PS I find stackoverfow a pain

I can't see how you can have a conversation without making a post... That's what I meant in my 1st post.

This forum used to have different user selectable display options, like Threaded, and Unthreaded... (I think that's the correct term)

Is that not still available?

 

[Brianwarnock]

I'm thinking an expandable/collapsible (+/-) comments section attached to each thread (if the user permits). One that stays collapsed when the thread is initially opened and allows for side comments. Maybe limited to 3 or 4 comments per thread.

I've seen this type of thing where comments are attached to a post and the +\- expands to show them or not, but it can be time consuming if you want to be sure of seeing all info, I like the simplicity of the AWF format.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

I can't see how you can have a conversation without making a post... That's what I meant in my 1st post.

This forum used to have different user selectable display options, like Threaded, and Unthreaded... (I think that's the correct term)

Is that not still available?

I understood your first post, not sure why this is referencing my sarcastic comment on the fact that your first post was the only one not thanked.

Brian

 

[vbaInet]

I've seen this type of thing where comments are attached to a post and the +\- expands to show them or not, but it can be time consuming if you want to be sure of seeing all info, I like the simplicity of the AWF format.

Brian

Agreed Brian, wysiwyg. I was only expanding on BlueIshDan's idea.