22 ms·

Threaded replies are a somewhat recent addition in both cases. In the case of Facebook, it's only been available for a couple months, and with YouTube, maybe a

Threaded replies are a somewhat recent addition in both cases. In the case of Facebook, it's only been available for a couple months, and with YouTube, maybe a year or two. People are probably just used to the old way.

NamTaf 11y ago
FB's threaded replies also only go 1 deep.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  As do YouTube's IIRC. See Jeff Atwood of StackExchange on his thoughts re: threading. My thought is that HTML needs a comments primitive with date, author, subject, and references, with the resulting view (threaded, flat, collapsed, etc.) a client detail. Or, you know, Usenet, tin.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    I still miss usenet. It's a shame that we still haven't improved on comment systems despite decades of technological advancement.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      I've spent a fair bit of time reflecting on it. I don't think it would work if resurrected: 1. Usenet was small. Somewhere between 50k and 500k users, based on my own and Gene Spafford's guestimates. More solid numbers appreciated (~1988-1992 or so). 2. It was selective. You had to be a student at a research university, or work for a tech company, or have government access, or be able to gain access to systems provided by same. Which meant you were at the tail end of a highly selective filter. 3. It crumbled under the face of multiple attacks: spam, abuse, trolls, etc. There were some defenses, but ultimately insufficient. 4. It was a pain to administrer, and for little or no gain. Which meant that few providers would, those who did charged, and they recouped minimum benefit for the effort. Ultimately it fell prey to the problem of shrinking usage and ready substitutes largely via mailing lists (relatively comparable) and Web-based forums. 5. Limited rich-format support, limited permanent content support, limited collaborative effort support. A Usenet-type functionality with _some_ support for post formatting, for images, video, and audio (but not to the point of being readily abusable), and for permanent content (FAQs, Wikis, etc.) to be usefully co-related to the primary discussion, would be useful. I don't know that we'll ever have "one" conversation platform again. And no, Facebook doesn't count.
      - mcv 11y ago
        Point 2 was only true before 1993. After that, everybody could get on usenet. And did. The eternal september drove the quality down quite a bit.
        dredmorbius 11y ago
        The Eternal September changed things. As participation increased, experience worsened. "Classical Usenet" was what came before, for the most part.

NamTaf 11y ago

FB's threaded replies also only go 1 deep.

dredmorbius 11y ago
As do YouTube's IIRC. See Jeff Atwood of StackExchange on his thoughts re: threading. My thought is that HTML needs a comments primitive with date, author, subject, and references, with the resulting view (threaded, flat, collapsed, etc.) a client detail. Or, you know, Usenet, tin.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  I still miss usenet. It's a shame that we still haven't improved on comment systems despite decades of technological advancement.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    I've spent a fair bit of time reflecting on it. I don't think it would work if resurrected: 1. Usenet was small. Somewhere between 50k and 500k users, based on my own and Gene Spafford's guestimates. More solid numbers appreciated (~1988-1992 or so). 2. It was selective. You had to be a student at a research university, or work for a tech company, or have government access, or be able to gain access to systems provided by same. Which meant you were at the tail end of a highly selective filter. 3. It crumbled under the face of multiple attacks: spam, abuse, trolls, etc. There were some defenses, but ultimately insufficient. 4. It was a pain to administrer, and for little or no gain. Which meant that few providers would, those who did charged, and they recouped minimum benefit for the effort. Ultimately it fell prey to the problem of shrinking usage and ready substitutes largely via mailing lists (relatively comparable) and Web-based forums. 5. Limited rich-format support, limited permanent content support, limited collaborative effort support. A Usenet-type functionality with _some_ support for post formatting, for images, video, and audio (but not to the point of being readily abusable), and for permanent content (FAQs, Wikis, etc.) to be usefully co-related to the primary discussion, would be useful. I don't know that we'll ever have "one" conversation platform again. And no, Facebook doesn't count.
    - mcv 11y ago
      Point 2 was only true before 1993. After that, everybody could get on usenet. And did. The eternal september drove the quality down quite a bit.
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        The Eternal September changed things. As participation increased, experience worsened. "Classical Usenet" was what came before, for the most part.