5 ms·

I appreciate it when you folks do this. But the UX for the reader isn't great, in that I must separately open your link to see the contextual parent of the spl

I appreciate it when you folks do this. But the UX for the reader isn't great, in that I must separately open your link to see the contextual parent of the split thread. Perhaps you can prefix the split post's content at the same indentation level as its own content with something like Moderator-edit: Split from $URL as offtopic, original parent was: $PARENT or somesuch would help.

dang 8y ago
Would it work better as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18325498#18325828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18325498#18325828?
- marvy 8y ago
  yes! As an extra bonus, make these links easier to find the UI, so I don't have to inspect the HTML to find them.
  - dang 8y ago
    I don't understand what "make these links easier to find the UI" means - can you explain?
    - mkingston 8y ago
      I think what GP means is make the anchor links easier to find, such that one can right-click somewhere in the UI and copy an anchor link to a comment. I'm not aware that they're available anywhere, presumably you constructed the anchor link manually, or examined the source?
      - marvy 8y ago
        Yep, that's exactly what I meant
- brandmeyer 8y ago
  That's a little better, yes. But what would be really nice is a way to see the parent of the split inline, without having to follow a link at all. In effect, the problem is that quoting and threading solve the same problem: giving the reader context. The original author's post relied entirely on threading, which you broke by splitting off the discussion. I think that adding a quote to the split post would restore context. There is some risk that by selectively quoting, you are becoming an editor rather than just a moderator. The part that is relevant for this particular split is obvious, but that won't always be true, so there should be some mechanism to show that you as a moderator accept responsibility for any misquoting. You could indicate the quote with italics and some very brief text explaining that you as a moderator put the quote in there. Or you could set it off with a thin orangered boarder, perhaps.

dang 8y ago

Would it work better as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18325498#18325828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18325498#18325828?

marvy 8y ago
yes! As an extra bonus, make these links easier to find the UI, so I don't have to inspect the HTML to find them.
- dang 8y ago
  I don't understand what "make these links easier to find the UI" means - can you explain?
  - mkingston 8y ago
    I think what GP means is make the anchor links easier to find, such that one can right-click somewhere in the UI and copy an anchor link to a comment. I'm not aware that they're available anywhere, presumably you constructed the anchor link manually, or examined the source?
    - marvy 8y ago
      Yep, that's exactly what I meant
brandmeyer 8y ago
That's a little better, yes. But what would be really nice is a way to see the parent of the split inline, without having to follow a link at all. In effect, the problem is that quoting and threading solve the same problem: giving the reader context. The original author's post relied entirely on threading, which you broke by splitting off the discussion. I think that adding a quote to the split post would restore context. There is some risk that by selectively quoting, you are becoming an editor rather than just a moderator. The part that is relevant for this particular split is obvious, but that won't always be true, so there should be some mechanism to show that you as a moderator accept responsibility for any misquoting. You could indicate the quote with italics and some very brief text explaining that you as a moderator put the quote in there. Or you could set it off with a thin orangered boarder, perhaps.