Forum Threaded View Vs. Chronological View

1. 67

   Glenn Stokposted 7 years ago

   I would suggest dropping the “Threaded view” since it confuses people. I've noticed that those who use it tend to overlook important parts of a conversation in a thread. If only "Chronological View" were used, this would not only simplify things, but everyone involved would be in sync with a conversation.
   
   In addition, I think it may help eliminate another overhead on the system since threaded view is more complex code.
   
   Just a thought.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      LOL  For me it is just the opposite; using chronological view tends to leave out a lot of the posts in a thread.  If you simply follow down the thread you'll get them all; if you try and look at every post, searching for a particular thread, you'll miss a bunch.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Glenn Stokposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Interesting! I understand what you’re saying, but I see it the other way. When I follow through in a threaded fashion, I can’t see what others are posting unless I start from the top again and follow another thread. That’s why I always felt the chronological view is better, since everyone’s posts are available in the order they were posted.
         
         Oh well, I guess that’s why they have both options—some people prefer one way or the other. Nevertheless, I have noticed at times that some people totally missed that I already mentioned something in response to someone else in a forum. They didn’t see it because they were in threaded view.

         replyreport
2. 75

   DzyMsLizzyposted 7 years ago

   I believe I mostly use the "threaded" view, and I am not confused...at least not too often. (Although I have plenty of confusing moments in my life!)  LOL!
   What I find far more confusing, or perhaps convoluted is a better word, is this new protocol in which every comment is duplicated into every reply.  It makes the page far more lengthy than necessary, and in itself causes a degree of confusion.
   I have yet to be able to figure out, (lacking both an education in computer programming and a decent set of instructions), is how to either get rid of the full quote, aǹd use only a portion thereof.I
   I don't care for this feature at all.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      lobobrandonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What you describe is the chronological view. This is what I use and I like it this way. The previous comment is included because you then know to whom the person who wrote was replying to.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      theraggededgeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If you are just making a general comment i.e. not replying to anyone in particular, use the black Reply button, bottom right Then the previous comment isn't copied in.
      
      If you are replying to someone, click on the Reply at the bottom of their message. To only include part of their message, you can select "Import and edit the quote". You have to do this before you begin typing. Then you can delete the bits you don't want.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Glenn Stokposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly correct!

         replyreport
   3. 67

      Glenn Stokposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Lizzy, that only is what happens when in chronological view. So I assume you’re confusing the two. Quoting is not necessary in threaded view because you’re already in a single thread. By the way, you can edit the quote before I posting.

      replyreport
3. 75

   theraggededgeposted 7 years ago

   I prefer Chronological... because it is logical.
   
   You can tell when people are using Threaded because they often reply to the wrong person, or think that the message was meant for them when it isn't.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      lobobrandonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yup, this is the reason Glenn started this

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Glenn Stokposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes indeed! That’s how I know when people are in threaded view too. I’ve seen cases where they get totally confused and don’t even know it. They also miss parts of the conversation.

      replyreport
4. 75

   DzyMsLizzyposted 7 years ago

   Ok, I guess I meant that I'm  using chronological view, in which case, I agree with the OP.
   I don't believe you miss ANY replies; they're all there, even if some are "hodden" between comments, with a "6 more replies" statement. That is a clickable link, and all those replies can be seen..although I'd prefer if they'd all open at once, instead of having to click the "more replies" button multiple times ( once for every reply). That is annoying.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      lobobrandonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I believe you are using a mix of chronological and threaded from the way you describe things.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Glenn Stokposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Lizzy, The issue with needing to click to open more replies only happens in threaded view. So it seems you are still confusing threaded with chronological. Or maybe you are using a mix of the two at different times, as Brandon mentioned.
      
      I suggest you pick one that you are comfortable with and stick to it. I recommend the chronological view because it will help you avoid the issues you described.
      
      You are right with what you said in your first paragraph. In chronological view all the posts are there and nothing is hidden. It also presents the posts in the order they were entered. Threaded view tends to jump around in time because it follows individual threads, which is why people can't follow the entire discussion properly in threaded view.

      replyreport