Is this a Quote Tree? Or...maybe it's a Tree Quote.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-16 11:44 by swiss.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

But the problems we have now aren't related to quoting pics or long quoting trees?

If I quote two short posts (i.e. a poster who post one line + another poster who responded with one word), my quote will make it look like one of the posters I quoted said something he/she didn't.

That was not the case earlier.

But, fine, I will edit every post by going into the text and remove stuff, so everybody can see who said what.

It's not 100 percent certain that everybody knows how to do that, though...

Posted by: Hairball
Date: December 16, 2016 10:01

It can be a tedious and time consuming process.

This new format prevents a natural flowing 'conversation', and more than likely deters some people from even using the quoting system now.
As for the 'quote trees' from the past, at least you could see who was posting what, and it had a conversational flow.



DandelionPowderman
It will be like this, if I do. Don't know if that's any better?

Hmmmm... at least it's clear who said what
Or do it all manually like below...either way it's a tedious and time consuming process.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
But the problems we have now aren't related to quoting pics or long quoting trees?

If I quote two short posts (i.e. a poster who post one line + another poster who responded with one word), my quote will make it look like one of the posters I quoted said something he/she didn't.

That was not the case earlier.

But, fine, I will edit every post by going into the text and remove stuff, so everybody can see who said what.

It's not 100 percent certain that everybody knows how to do that, though...

Quote
Hairball
It can be a tedious and time consuming process.

This new format prevents a natural flowing 'conversation', and more than likely deters some people from even using the quoting system now.
As for the 'quote trees' from the past, at least you could see who was posting what, and it had a conversational flow.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It will be like this, if I do. Don't know if that's any better?

Whatever you do, please don't quote me on this!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-16 11:27 by Hairball.

I'm just relieved to see that the change only affects new posts, so if you take a look at one of last year's discussions, you won't see one person apparently giving three different and conflicting opinions, or telling himself to go and get his ears washed out because he doesn't like track X.

After bv's post, it looks as if this change is deliberate and here to stay, like it or not, so we will all have to learn our own ways of dealing with it.

Essentially, what has changed is that when you quote a post or series of posts, only the text survives in the new quote box, with all formatting like older [ quote ] boxes (or [ pic ] or [ url ] or [ color ] ) removed. Don't expect to quote a post that says "go here (with URL reference) for further details - all that will remain is the word "here", going nowhere.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-16 12:43 by Green Lady.

LOL, Hairball!

I don't get BV:s non-answer here. Why is it important to impair the usability of the forum?

Quote
CaptainCorella

THE QUOTE FUNCTION CAN TAKE SINGLE POSTS AS USUAL. HOWEVER, IT SEEMS THAT IT CAN'T HANDLE ADEQUATELY POSTS THAT FIGURE IN A "TREE OF POSTS". BECAUSE THEN ALL THE POSTS IN THE "TREE" ARE ALLOTTED TO THE POSTER WITH THE LATEST POST.

If you look over in the 'Talk about Talk' forum, which I would argue is the right place to report & discuss this, you'll see that I posted about this about 48 hours before anyone else did.

Despite my severe great age I can spot technical problems, and that's good.

When BV returns from his mountain perhaps he can shift this thread to the right place?

I had never read anything on that other forum before your post here, earlier I was hardly aware of that subforum's existence. I was not implying that the thread I started was the first time that the seeming malfunction was discovered by anyone. The first time I myself saw it, days earlier, I thought that it would immediately be remedied. After registering during the following days at least two other posters hinting at it (first Gas Light Street and later also HMS), I wrote my post in capital letters meant only to be a temporary post, thinking that the modified quote function was, as I then thought, unintentional, therefore to bring it to notice.

I am sorry if I have contributed to detract attention from your post on the other subforum. I had no need to start a thread about this, apart from my vain wish to have a quote function as formerly.

There is no forum on IORR called «Talk about talk»?

This is definitely the right forum to discuss this, I'd say, although the correct way to address this might be to send Bjørnulf an email.

EDIT: I found the Talk About Talk-forum, but only when I used the search-function. It's not on the front page!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-16 16:50 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
There is no forum on IORR called «Talk about talk»?

This is definitely the right forum to discuss this, I'd say, although the correct way to address this might be to send Bjørnulf an email.

In fact, I sent a mail to iorr@arena.no on Friday, December 09. Subject in English and text in Norwegian.

I don't want to start quoting posts - but what is "Talk About Talk" forum?

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I don't want to start quoting posts - but what is "Talk About Talk" forum?

You get the Talk About Talk-option when using the search function. Haven't seen it elsewhere..

It's funny, I don't really like the quoting features on most message boards. Multiple-quote blocks create clutter, especially when several posts are being quoted at the same time. I'm actually less likely to wade through it all, and read entire conversations, if the whole thread is 10 pages of repeated quote-bricks, filled with endless pics and inanities.

I would rather do things the way they are right now: edit each of my posts, before I click: "Post message," and not leave this virtual world full of clutter because I don't have time to make everything look right. I certainly find the time to be here and post. Even if you're posting from a phone, you could take the extra few moments it would require and add bold type to separate specific authors in multiple quotes. We ought to be cleaning up after ourselves here and not just clicking post, post,post to satisfy our own desires in-the-moment.

There are some really daring thread titles in the Talk About Talk-section, although no one is using it.

Especially this thread about Mick...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-16 17:15 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Stoneage
I don't get BV:s non-answer here. Why is it important to impair the usability of the forum?

It might be to do with improving the speed of loading pages. Lots of pictures = a long time for the thread to load. But I can't say I've noticed that quote trees have the same effect.

Quote
Socrates1
It's funny, I don't really like the quoting features on most message boards. Multiple-quote blocks create clutter, especially when several posts are being quoted at the same time. I'm actually less likely to wade through it all, and read entire conversations, if the whole thread is 10 pages of repeated quote-bricks, filled with endless pics and inanities.

I would rather do things the way they are right now: edit each of my posts, before I click: "Post message," and not leave this virtual world full of clutter because I don't have time to make everything look right. I certainly find the time to be here and post. Even if you're posting from a phone, you could take the extra few moments it would require and add bold type to separate specific authors in multiple quotes. We ought to be cleaning up after ourselves here and not just clicking post, post,post to satisfy our own desires in-the-moment.

What if the original poster's name/ posters' names is/are on another page of the thread? If you write your own new text before you correct the quotes, you will lose it during the correcting activity, so far as I can see. If instead I shall start by correcting the quotes, the original inspiration for my own intended post will easily have disappeared in the meantime.

Edit: One word "as" had fallen out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-17 11:03 by Witness.

Now I just did something on another thread: I clicked the quote thing out of habit. I didn't really need to quote someone else's post. There was only one other post, form a third member, separating me and the person that I quoted. I wonder how boards would look if there were no quoting features at all? People might take the time to be more reflective, instead of filing up space with in-the-moment post-post-posts. Just a thought..

To be honest, I don't see those massive quote trees happening very often and when they do, sometimes, they can be entertaining in their obvious silliness.........ie,. Monty pythonesque ..

They'll all sink down to the bottom of the cyber dustbin /trash can eventually anyway.....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-16 17:22 by EddieByword.

Quote
EddieByword
To be honest, I don't see those massive quote trees happening very often and when they do, sometimes, they can be entertaining in their obvious silliness.........ie,. Monty pythonesque ..

They'll all sink down to the bottom of the cyber dustbin /trash can eventually anyway.....

Quoting a discussion with two or three posts is not problematic at all. On the contrary, it's easy to navigate in the discussion because of the quote boxes.

If we all don't quote pictures, or edit out the picture-codes, the quoting trees are fine and readable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-16 19:46 by DandelionPowderman.

Thankfully I don't have to read through ten pages of my own inanities. Now imagine me, repeated in blocks over and over again. I could give myself a headache.

Please read what I added at the front of this thread:

If you need too many rules then it is usually because people do not think before they post, or because they ignore other people.

There are two ways of saying "You look great today" to a person:

A: The right way:

"You look great today. I really mean it. You look great!"

This is a clear and undisputed way of communicating.

B: The wrong way:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Bla bla bla bla bla bla meaningless words in between things you and others have said many many many many times. You look great today. I really mean it. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Bla bla bla bla bla bla meaningless words in between things you and others have said many many many many times. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

=====

QUOTING ON IORR:

Every person who post is responsible of how their post looks like. If the message is drowning in quoting spam then it is a bad post. It is spam and nobody will care about it. I might delete it, and it would take time for me, as moderator, to delete it. So please, do not quote pictures, do not make endless quoting trees. It is NOT good practice. It is ignorant spam.

Bjornulf

I'm not one to complain about the format or rules of this board, but.....

Some things are better left the way they were - too many 'fixes' can turn in it all into a quagmire.
Like an update on your computer system - some of them are helpful and useful, while others are detrimental and useless.
This new 'streamlined' format of quoting is a good example of technology run amok.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

In a thread on a forum not all posters are engaged in exactly the same issues. Then it would be advantageous to quote exchanges of views between those posters who are addressing the same issues, as a starting point for my own posts.

Besides, wanting to comment on aspects or details of a subjectmatter, I as a non-musician may sometimes need to refer to exchanges of views between posters who are musicians and/or have deep knowledge of music, either because they then know subjects that I am not in full command of or am not capable of expressing. Sometimes also out of respect for how they find wonderful words for expressing something that I want to comment on in all modesty.

Then I take your signal, bv, instead to leave the discussion to those capable posters and become a reader only.

I didn't get the second non-answer either. I guess I'm stupid then.

<Then I take your signal, bv, instead to leave the discussion to those capable posters and become a reader only>

This is not how we want discussions to turn out, surely.

Leaving discussions only for the posters who bother to edit their contributions manually?

Can't we just remove pictures from the posts we quote and leave the rest as it was??

I'm really confused.

>> I didn't get the second non-answer either. I guess I'm stupid then.<<

His point was that you should be able to make your point without the endless run-on quotes. You know, you don'even need a quote function to respond to something and make it clear what you are responding to, see.

BV must be old like me. he expects people to be able to think and write. He seemed sad that he had to impose a rule because people could not do this voluntarily.

You might not agree, you might prefer endless copies of the same graphics and foot-long quote trees, but it is not hard to understand, is it?

That shouldn't be the point, really, as it usually works nicely to use the quote function without displaying a quote tree.

Now the quote function isn't working like it used to, and it causes confusion.

Now instead of a 'quote tree' (which really wasn't that annoying was it?), there's a single large space with a dialogue that goes uncredited (or wrongly credited to one person).
This large space includes multiple posts from a variety of posters. and makes it confusing as to who said what which is more annoying than a 'tree quote'..
I'm not sure Bjornulf is addressing the problem he seems to be posting about...there might be some confusion somewhere there.

But whatever, life goes on and there's more important things to deal with.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
Stoneage
I don't get BV:s non-answer here. Why is it important to impair the usability of the forum?

I know what bv is talking about...but it's not unpolite to quote someone just to make clear to whom anyone is refering to.

Hope the quoting button will get back it's fine formerly function.
If not it's useless,could be erased.

And to clarify: I’m sure my posts can be inane at times. In fact, I’ve probably been more annoying than others in at least a few ways: I started the three-posts-in-a-row-thing. Didn’t I? Sometimes I’ll post, then over a few hours time I’ll feel like expounding upon my original thought (altogether, not always a good succession of ideas). But I never want to go back and continually keep editing my post over and over again, so I’ll make a few posts in a row…. I’m sure I can be annoying on message boards.

So I’m sorry, BV. I know you have your regular job, then you have your after-hours IORR gig which doesn’t pay. In fact, you keep this site running without ads. Thanks for that too, BV, the self-titled: “Editor of IORR.” Ultimately: everything posted on this site has BV’s name on it. We could all take a few minutes to clean up after ourselves while we’re here. I wouldn’t want to have to read all this!

Having said all that..the new quote thing is not as user-friendly as the old way. ..Tho, friendliness is a two-way street. If we want clean streets we have to clean them ourselves. Somewhere in here I should have stopped writing. Perhaps, we, more than likely, as a collective group of posters on this site (by that I mean: every poster on IORR, from around the world, not just me, myself and I) veer into annoying-territory for the guy who has to read through this place! I need an editor. Maybe I’m really more annoying than most and I don’t want to admit it? I’m reminded of the expression: “blah blah blah.” I’m going to attempt to contain myself, starting now.

Cheers to our gracious host; You know him, you love him, he’s yours, BV!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-17 05:30 by Socrates1.

Quote
bv

QUOTING ON IORR:

Every person who post is responsible of how their post looks like. If the message is drowning in quoting spam then it is a bad post. It is spam and nobody will care about it. I might delete it, and it would take time for me, as moderator, to delete it. So please, do not quote pictures, do not make endless quoting trees. It is NOT good practice. It is ignorant spam.

Indeed. But of the act of quoting text brutally corrupts the presentation, as reported here [iorr.org] then these totally sane comments are next to impossible to adhere to. No matter the will, and goodwill.

(I share the view of others, that a report of changed program behaviour when quoting has been mis-heard as a querying of policy. My report at [iorr.org] was intended to alert whoever to a programming problem. No more than that.)

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan