After replying to a particular post - vB should return you to *that* post

[Ocean]

One of the weaknesses I find in vB's posting system is this... If you are reading a Thread that contains 100 posts, and let's say that 50 of them are new to you - and you choose to reply to Post # 63 (by using that post's Quote button)... after you submit your reply, you are dumped at the very bottom of that Thread.

Now, you have to remember which post you just replied to and search for it so that you can keep reading the thread from where you left off. And if you are doing a good amount of replying, this gets especially tedious.


I would suggest that if you reply to a specific post by using that post's Reply or Quote button, after you submit your reply - vB should drop you back in the thread but scrolled to and viewing that last post that you just responded to.

[crash resistant]

but anyone who would reply to a thread that long, obviously doesn't care to read on and on..

most educated forum users reply after reading the entire thread- and if they reply without reading all of it, they obviously don't care one way or the other- so your feature idea is sort of an oxy-moron's feature.

although it is a good feature none-the-less. keep in mind, this isn't a big issue IMO

[Ocean]

but anyone who would reply to a thread that long, obviously doesn't care to read on and on..

most educated forum users reply after reading the entire thread- and if they reply without reading all of it, they obviously don't care one way or the other- so your feature idea is sort of an oxy-moron's feature.

although it is a good feature none-the-less. keep in mind, this isn't a big issue IMO




There's nothing "obvious" about it - and you should be careful not to judge others by how you do things.

I, and many other people, do not read an entire thread before beginning to reply. It has nothing to do with being uneducated, and it most certainly has nothing to do with a lack of interest.

For longer threads, it's a pain in the neck to try and remember which posts you wanted to reply to - and it most certainly breaks the rhythm and takes longer.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with replying to posts as you read them - and many users prefer to do just that.


As such, this feature is an important one - from a useability point of view. But in any case, it shouldn't be a difficult feature to implement - and it most certainly can be made into a user-specific option that is settable for each person in their UserCP/Options.

[ALcorn]

Just switch the Display Mode from "Linear" to "Hybrid" or "Threaded" and you will see to what post you just have replied ;)

[Ocean]

Just switch the Display Mode from "Linear" to "Hybrid" or "Threaded" and you will see to what post you just have replied ;)




Not a good solution, as many people passionately hate Hybrid and Threaded mode. :)

[Icheb]

As far as I can tell is that your solution would promote double and triple posts, which are not that welcome in many forums (I'm not saying every forum, but I'm not saying that it's uncommon). It would say that it's ok to read to post #x, reply to it, then read on until you hit post #y, reply to it, and then continue reading.
My approach when replying to multiple posts is this: I open a new window / tab and type my responses there as I go along, so that I can reply to as many people as I want, but only have one post.

[darnoldy]

As far as I can tell is that your solution would promote double and triple posts

There seems to be a very strong feeling among some that multiple posts are a *bad* thing. I come from an online culture where they are the norm.

Having been looking at a number of php-based forum solutions across the last 6 months, I think I know why--It is often difficult or impossible to tell to whom each post is addressed.

I am in the process of adding the parentid (which will be a link to that message), and the name of the parent's poster to the postbit template to help with that issue.

I would like to support Ocean's desire to return to the post to which you replied. This may be 9probably is) a simple template modification, rather than a code modification--and I would be just as happy if someone could tell us how to do it ourselves.

--don

[Icheb]

[...] Having been looking at a number of php-based forum solutions across the last 6 months, I think I know why--It is often difficult or impossible to tell to whom each post is addressed. [...]
That's not the issue, at least not in my forum. Double posts are unnecessary because what you say in two posts you can also say in one and they only add to your post count.
Besides, if you don't know to which post a post is refering to, it won't help to have 3 posts instead of 1 ;) .

[Ocean]

As far as I can tell is that your solution would promote double and triple posts, which are not that welcome in many forums (I'm not saying every forum, but I'm not saying that it's uncommon).




People who refer to multiple posts occassionally mean different things. Which definition are you referring to?





It would say that it's ok to read to post #x, reply to it, then read on until you hit post #y, reply to it, and then continue reading.




I'm a bit confused. The first part of your comment seemed to indicate that you felt there was a problem with my solution. But this second part seems to say that it's okay.

Can you clarify, please? :)

[Ocean]

There seems to be a very strong feeling among some that multiple posts are a *bad* thing. I come from an online culture where they are the norm.

Having been looking at a number of php-based forum solutions across the last 6 months, I think I know why--It is often difficult or impossible to tell to whom each post is addressed.




That's why I feel very strongly about the etiquette of Quoting. If you don't, it becomes a mess - as no one has any idea of what is being said to whom. :)

[merk]

That's not the issue, at least not in my forum. Double posts are unnecessary because what you say in two posts you can also say in one and they only add to your post count.
Besides, if you don't know to which post a post is refering to, it won't help to have 3 posts instead of 1 ;) .

That seems against every other forum-kind-of-medium like mailing lists and newsgroups.

They are all sorted by what post you replied to. If you want to reply to 2 different people you should be doing it in 2 different replies.

If you have such an issue with postcounts, why dont you remove them? I did.

[Icheb]

Ocean: Multiple posts for me are several posts in a row without another user posting something inbetween. For an example what you just did. It would have been possible to write both messages in one post (no pun intended :) ).

The second part of my post was actually just meant to clarify the first part. Basically what I said is that when you implement the solution for the reasons you mentioned, it would encourage people to double post instead of posting just once. Of course the system wouldn't encourage that by itself, it's your reasoning behind the implementation what I am concerned with.

merk: In threaded mode, yes. But from what I can tell most people use linear mode in forums.

[merk]

Ocean: Multiple posts for me are several posts in a row without another user posting something inbetween. For an example what you just did. It would have been possible to write both messages in one post (no pun intended :) ).

Both messages were replying to different posts. I cant see how you can say it could have been made in one post. You're posts were not in one post, so how could he just make one reply?

It has nothing to do with linear mode vs threaded mode, it has to do with keeping track of replying to specific posts. It does help in threaded mode, though.

[Icheb]

It has to do with threaded mode. In linear mode I can just say "user x: bla user y: bla", like I did before. What's the problem with that?
I do agree with you that it has benefits in threaded mode. If you are replying to two discussion in threaded mode and only make one post, the post won't be read if people only follow the other discussion.

[Ocean]

Ocean: Multiple posts for me are several posts in a row without another user posting something inbetween. For an example what you just did. It would have been possible to write both messages in one post (no pun intended :) ).




Thank you for your clarification. :)

Personally, I don't see the problem. I seperated those posts because each one was responding to a different person/post - the delineation seemed natural. It's also easier from the point of view of Quoting - not to mention if that mini thread-within-a-thread continues by having your responses responded to.

I suppose I can understand why some people might not want it - but to me, it just seems to be the clearer way to do things. :)