3 ms·

I've got to disagree with the recommendation against threading. The problem is that too many sites do it badly. The HN approach, where I can collapse an entir

I've got to disagree with the recommendation against threading. The problem is that too many sites do it badly. The HN approach, where I can collapse an entire thread easily but see them all by default, is optimal for me.

m463 2y ago
I absolutely despise the phpboard type sites where you have to wade through 1000 low-quality replies [<= 1 2 3 ... 57 58 LAST => ] to find the meaningful ones. HN is not perfect (breaks above several hundred replies), but it is pretty good. I did kind of like slashdot's upvote-reason information. I thought it could have evolved better though. There could have been "browse serious answers" or "browse to entertain" to match them. That could be an answer to stack overflow's "death to discussion" kinds of things.
PhoenixReborn 2y ago
And HN famously took this approach from Reddit, who do the same thing.
mistercow 2y ago
I think it’s worth noting that when this post was written, the reddit/HN style of threaded conversations was really new, and other contemporary implementations of threading were truly awful.
- pasc1878 2y ago
  nntp news readers had existed for many years and many do this form of threading. So not new. I hate many web boards as they don't thread.
  - Akronymus 2y ago
    I used to prefer threaded discussions, but nowadays I am more leaning towards flat discussions, as it is more usable for me.
ftth_finland 2y ago
HN is lacking in that you cannot hide threads/comments already seen.
brudgers 2y ago
HN added collapsible comment threads a few years old ago...modulo the meaning of "few." So there was a long time to get it right (right for HN); a lot of time for the people implementing collapsible threads to experience them as users; and in the end the implementation made minimum changes to the user experience.
marbletiles 2y ago
Like the article says, threading can be tolerable with a programmer mindset but in more general audiences you often end up with just nests of essentially unthreaded conversations. Even here it’s a major drawback on the very big threads, because it’s impossible to see what posts are new or keep current on the big discussions. As soon as you see Dang posting a link to page two and promising software updates in future, you know you’ve no chance of understanding what’s being said. None of these things are problems with unthreaded conversations, which easily scale to thousands of comments.
- krapp 2y ago
  None of those things are inherently problems with threaded conversations either. Hacker News is designed to discourage long-term engagement because the quality of conversation drops and the likelihood of flamewars increases over time. It's just a matter of implementation design and goals.
  - dsr_ 2y ago
    I would argue that the quality of conversation drops and flamewars increase because HN is discouraging long-term engagement with an article. Threading, new-only, relevant context displayed systems without point systems but with personal killfiles encourage discussion and viewing other participants as people. What HN has makes only a relative handful of high-frequency commentators visible as people; everyone else is marginalized.
    - ngrilly 2y ago
      > Threading, new-only, relevant context displayed systems without point systems but with personal killfiles encourage discussion and viewing other participants as people. What do you mean by "new-only"? And how would you show relevant context with personal killfiles and without a point system? :)
  - ngrilly 2y ago
    How would you solve the problem of keeping track of new comments in the HN model (threaded), assuming you'd like the conversation to continue over a few days or weeks? I think the HN model is superior in almost every ways, except when it comes to following new comments, which is painful.

m463 2y ago

I absolutely despise the phpboard type sites where you have to wade through 1000 low-quality replies [<= 1 2 3 ... 57 58 LAST => ] to find the meaningful ones. HN is not perfect (breaks above several hundred replies), but it is pretty good. I did kind of like slashdot's upvote-reason information. I thought it could have evolved better though. There could have been "browse serious answers" or "browse to entertain" to match them. That could be an answer to stack overflow's "death to discussion" kinds of things.

PhoenixReborn 2y ago

And HN famously took this approach from Reddit, who do the same thing.

mistercow 2y ago

I think it’s worth noting that when this post was written, the reddit/HN style of threaded conversations was really new, and other contemporary implementations of threading were truly awful.

pasc1878 2y ago
nntp news readers had existed for many years and many do this form of threading. So not new. I hate many web boards as they don't thread.
- Akronymus 2y ago
  I used to prefer threaded discussions, but nowadays I am more leaning towards flat discussions, as it is more usable for me.

ftth_finland 2y ago

HN is lacking in that you cannot hide threads/comments already seen.

brudgers 2y ago

HN added collapsible comment threads a few years old ago...modulo the meaning of "few." So there was a long time to get it right (right for HN); a lot of time for the people implementing collapsible threads to experience them as users; and in the end the implementation made minimum changes to the user experience.

marbletiles 2y ago

Like the article says, threading can be tolerable with a programmer mindset but in more general audiences you often end up with just nests of essentially unthreaded conversations. Even here it’s a major drawback on the very big threads, because it’s impossible to see what posts are new or keep current on the big discussions. As soon as you see Dang posting a link to page two and promising software updates in future, you know you’ve no chance of understanding what’s being said. None of these things are problems with unthreaded conversations, which easily scale to thousands of comments.

krapp 2y ago
None of those things are inherently problems with threaded conversations either. Hacker News is designed to discourage long-term engagement because the quality of conversation drops and the likelihood of flamewars increases over time. It's just a matter of implementation design and goals.
- dsr_ 2y ago
  I would argue that the quality of conversation drops and flamewars increase because HN is discouraging long-term engagement with an article. Threading, new-only, relevant context displayed systems without point systems but with personal killfiles encourage discussion and viewing other participants as people. What HN has makes only a relative handful of high-frequency commentators visible as people; everyone else is marginalized.
  - ngrilly 2y ago
    > Threading, new-only, relevant context displayed systems without point systems but with personal killfiles encourage discussion and viewing other participants as people. What do you mean by "new-only"? And how would you show relevant context with personal killfiles and without a point system? :)
- ngrilly 2y ago
  How would you solve the problem of keeping track of new comments in the HN model (threaded), assuming you'd like the conversation to continue over a few days or weeks? I think the HN model is superior in almost every ways, except when it comes to following new comments, which is painful.