3 ms·
Counterpoint: I can easily understand the treading on HN. Whenever I see a threaded conversation on twitter, I cannot tell what is a response to what. I'm no
by recursive 9y ago
Counterpoint: I can easily understand the treading on HN. Whenever I see a threaded conversation on twitter, I cannot tell what is a response to what. I'm not sure if threaded is even the right word, but you used it first.
For instance: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/498008486551506945 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/49800848655150694...
There are a ton of replies to things, but I can't tell where anything fits logically.
- Karunamon 9y agoBasically you're looking at a flattened tree. Anytime you see the lines, those are part of the same conversation sequentially. Once the lines stop, that's a new conversation. http://i.imgur.com/02mm3YW.png http://i.imgur.com/02mm3YW.png And an ASCII version: Tweet ----- 1.0 Reply to tweet | 1.1 Reply to 1.0 | 1.2 Reply to 1.1 ---- 2.0 Reply to tweet | 2.1 Reply to 2.0 | 2.2 Reply to 2.1 --- 3.0 Reply to tweet
- recursive 9y agoSo where does a reply to 1.1 go?
- Karunamon 9y agoRight where 1.2 is. If you wanted to see the direct responses to that, you'd click on that tweet, and then be looking at a new subthread. It's all predicated on whose message the reply-er clicked the reply button on. First Tweet Reply 1 Reply 2 <-- click Reply 1 Reply 1.1 Reply 1.2 You only see the first two levels of the main tweet you're looking at. The first tweet, its replies, and the immediate children of those replies. Some indenting would make this a lot more intuitive.
- recursive 9y agoThat is basically my complaint then. I have 1920 horizontal pixels available, but for some reason twitter is intent on only using a small fraction of that.