7 ms·

One feature that is missing with this, and with every discussion forum since usenet , is a tree-view of a thread. On my Thunderbird I still follow some usenet

by kitd 7y ago

One feature that is missing with this, and with every discussion forum since usenet , is a tree-view of a thread. On my Thunderbird I still follow some usenet forums and it is so much clearer and quicker with a tree view to see who has replied at what point in the thread. Poring through reams of quoted replies just to find where in the thread the answer comes doesn't cut it.

chrisseaton 7y ago
Do you think this kind of deep-threading, or tree-nesting, encourages a forked conversation, with everyone in the discussion trying to respond to individual comments in an ever-growing tree, rather than responding to the current conversation as a whole? I find mailing list threads that are trees very hard to follow. It's probably a conscious decision.
- kodablah 7y ago
  I've found trees encourage forked conversations in a good way. While I don't find them hard to follow, I do find revisiting them to be a bit difficult. While it can seem difficult to follow the overarching topic given a set of trees, it's near impossible to have any in-depth discussions about more than one thing in flat threads. I have given these models lots of thought and have come to the conclusion that the success/failure of hierarchical conversations is determined solely by the presentation. Common mailing lists and email UIs leave the most to be desired, while HN, reddit, sbnation community sites, etc show a path forward. But nobody has implemented the view properly enough to let you see the forest and the trees at the same time (yet).
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    Here's a concrete example where I think it goes wrong. You say something, and two people respond. There's one thing to say in response to both people - maybe they both misunderstood part of your point. Which comment do you respond to? On places like HN people seem to feel the need to respond to both branches, which causes exponential growth if it continues, compared to if you could respond to the two comments as one. Maybe we need a comment DAG instead? Responding to an arbitrary number of comments? Maybe comments that aren't even siblings?
    - bmn__ 7y ago
      > Maybe we need a comment DAG instead? Internet messages (Usenet, email) already work that way. If you want to reply to multiple messages, this is easily possible. Most users are not familiar with it because the widely implemented threading algorithm prunes the graph into a tree for display purposes. https://ddg.gg/?q=jwz+email+threading https://ddg.gg/?q=jwz+email+threading
    - clarry 7y ago
      > Maybe we need a comment DAG instead? HN comments are a DAG. DAGs are branchy, which is the problem. It seems like you want to merge or rebase the two comments and then reply with a new node pointing to the last of them.
      - doubleunplussed 7y ago
        Hacker news comments are a restricted DAG where a node can't have multiple parents. Obviously they're referring to that property. The branches could come back together again.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > HN comments are a DAG. Come on don’t be pedantic you know what I mean - I mean a DAG that is not also a tree - so using the merging property of a DAG. If HN were a DAG then I could make this reply to your comment and someone else’s on another part of the discussion at the same time. > merge or rebase These are source control terms - I’m not sure how they apply here.
        icebraining 7y ago
        > These are source control terms - I’m not sure how they apply here. Git is a DAG too.
  - nathcd 7y ago
    What do you think about Zulip's format?
- kitd 7y ago
  Most conversations get forked anyway IME. An easily navigable tree view supports that much better imo.
threatofrain 7y ago
Also the problem with Twitter although the boundaries of distinct conversations there are different. Trying to follow any conversation there is like a game.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
Tree-view doesn't exist once there's a global reply box. A `comment.parent` pointer only makes sense on a website like Reddit where the user is forced to reply to someone. Else you have a situation like most forums (phpbb, vbulletin, xenforo, etc) where tree-view is useless and unused because only a fraction of the posts have any sort of parent relationship. Besides, the idea of tree-view never really caught on in those fuller-fledged forums I listed as you could be quoting any number of people and have more than a 1:1 argument like you're forced to on Reddit/HN. In other words, I don't think a forum lacks a tree-view when it's also lacking the entire reply paradigm.
animalnewbie 7y ago
> every discussion forum since Usenet 4chan + 4chanx would like to have a word!
DangerousPie 7y ago
> One feature that is missing with this, and with every discussion forum since usenet , is a tree-view of a thread. Uhm... have you ever heard of a little-known site called "Hackernews"?
- OJFord 7y ago
  Or the even more niche 'Reddit'.
- kitd 7y ago
  I wasn't particularly clear, apologies. I was really referring to instances where navigating the tree view was a core part of the interface. This means being able to expand and collapse the tree easily, as well as identify quickly nodes that have replies. On a typical Usenet reader, new replies are normally highlighted, and read nodes/subthreads can be quickly collapsed, often by default. Neither of those are possible with HN, Reddit or typical NodeBB sites where every post is displayed whether read or not.
sercand 7y ago
Gitlab or Slack style threading would be better option for discussions instead of tree-view.

by kitd 7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago

Do you think this kind of deep-threading, or tree-nesting, encourages a forked conversation, with everyone in the discussion trying to respond to individual comments in an ever-growing tree, rather than responding to the current conversation as a whole? I find mailing list threads that are trees very hard to follow. It's probably a conscious decision.

kodablah 7y ago
I've found trees encourage forked conversations in a good way. While I don't find them hard to follow, I do find revisiting them to be a bit difficult. While it can seem difficult to follow the overarching topic given a set of trees, it's near impossible to have any in-depth discussions about more than one thing in flat threads. I have given these models lots of thought and have come to the conclusion that the success/failure of hierarchical conversations is determined solely by the presentation. Common mailing lists and email UIs leave the most to be desired, while HN, reddit, sbnation community sites, etc show a path forward. But nobody has implemented the view properly enough to let you see the forest and the trees at the same time (yet).
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  Here's a concrete example where I think it goes wrong. You say something, and two people respond. There's one thing to say in response to both people - maybe they both misunderstood part of your point. Which comment do you respond to? On places like HN people seem to feel the need to respond to both branches, which causes exponential growth if it continues, compared to if you could respond to the two comments as one. Maybe we need a comment DAG instead? Responding to an arbitrary number of comments? Maybe comments that aren't even siblings?
  - bmn__ 7y ago
    > Maybe we need a comment DAG instead? Internet messages (Usenet, email) already work that way. If you want to reply to multiple messages, this is easily possible. Most users are not familiar with it because the widely implemented threading algorithm prunes the graph into a tree for display purposes. https://ddg.gg/?q=jwz+email+threading https://ddg.gg/?q=jwz+email+threading
  - clarry 7y ago
    > Maybe we need a comment DAG instead? HN comments are a DAG. DAGs are branchy, which is the problem. It seems like you want to merge or rebase the two comments and then reply with a new node pointing to the last of them.
    - doubleunplussed 7y ago
      Hacker news comments are a restricted DAG where a node can't have multiple parents. Obviously they're referring to that property. The branches could come back together again.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > HN comments are a DAG. Come on don’t be pedantic you know what I mean - I mean a DAG that is not also a tree - so using the merging property of a DAG. If HN were a DAG then I could make this reply to your comment and someone else’s on another part of the discussion at the same time. > merge or rebase These are source control terms - I’m not sure how they apply here.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        > These are source control terms - I’m not sure how they apply here. Git is a DAG too.
- nathcd 7y ago
  What do you think about Zulip's format?
kitd 7y ago
Most conversations get forked anyway IME. An easily navigable tree view supports that much better imo.

threatofrain 7y ago

Also the problem with Twitter although the boundaries of distinct conversations there are different. Trying to follow any conversation there is like a game.

hombre_fatal 7y ago

Tree-view doesn't exist once there's a global reply box. A `comment.parent` pointer only makes sense on a website like Reddit where the user is forced to reply to someone. Else you have a situation like most forums (phpbb, vbulletin, xenforo, etc) where tree-view is useless and unused because only a fraction of the posts have any sort of parent relationship. Besides, the idea of tree-view never really caught on in those fuller-fledged forums I listed as you could be quoting any number of people and have more than a 1:1 argument like you're forced to on Reddit/HN. In other words, I don't think a forum lacks a tree-view when it's also lacking the entire reply paradigm.

animalnewbie 7y ago

> every discussion forum since Usenet 4chan + 4chanx would like to have a word!

DangerousPie 7y ago

> One feature that is missing with this, and with every discussion forum since usenet , is a tree-view of a thread. Uhm... have you ever heard of a little-known site called "Hackernews"?

OJFord 7y ago
Or the even more niche 'Reddit'.
kitd 7y ago
I wasn't particularly clear, apologies. I was really referring to instances where navigating the tree view was a core part of the interface. This means being able to expand and collapse the tree easily, as well as identify quickly nodes that have replies. On a typical Usenet reader, new replies are normally highlighted, and read nodes/subthreads can be quickly collapsed, often by default. Neither of those are possible with HN, Reddit or typical NodeBB sites where every post is displayed whether read or not.

sercand 7y ago

Gitlab or Slack style threading would be better option for discussions instead of tree-view.