Why don't modern forums and message boards have threaded mode?
Everything is linear mode, this causes threads to go to shit because some guy replied to another guy. With threaded mode you wouldn't have to see useless derailing replies.
maybe it works for mailing lists, but high frequency threaded mode forums such as reddit and hacker news are unreadable garbage. post quality is inversely proportional to how deep into a thread a post is, as they become increasingly self-referential and irrelevant. to make matters worse, they choose to expose all posts by default, in a hierarchically sequential mode. the result is that you have one relevant post (if you're lucky) and then a wall of shitty responses to that post, and then finally another relevant post.
>>4 post quality is inversely proportional to how deep into a thread a post is
Is it not better to be able to ignore such depths? I know reddit doesn't hide replies based on depth, but rather based on number of replies per depth. Or something like that.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-29 5:01
Actually threaded forums devolve into shit quickly, since people reply to each other in their leafs of discussion like text chat.
Linear view makes each post equal.
>>7
Yeah and non threaded forums never devolve into shit quickly. No matter what form communication takes, most of the people are worthless idiots or saboteurs.
Then just write a script to do it.
On Japanesu style boards you have all the information you need to implement threading.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-29 15:19
>>7
All online discussions quickly devolve to shit. That's not the point. The point is that if a troll makes a troll post, you don't have to read his branch of hundreds of replies to his troll post.
>>17
WHICH MAKES A MESS OUT OF EVERYTHING by duplicating content all over the place.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-29 16:41
>>16-17
I propose we rename threaded mode to tree mode and create a dag mode that doesn't duplicate posts, just pointers to them.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-29 17:42
Tree mode
Note: Branches of replies are not visible unless you open them.
Interesting post
|
|
First reply
|
|
Shit post ──── 100 replies to this troll that would've derailed a linear thread (not visible)
|
|
Continuing conversation of OP's post
|
|
Interesting comment ────(manually open this branch)──── Reply to interesting comment
| |
| |
| More posts continuing this line of thought...
|
Continuing conversation...
Though I do think that that's a sacrifice users make in ANY online forum when they decide not to open a thread because it didn't sound interesting at first. Perhaps while browing /prog/ I saw an autism thread that I did not open, but it had a reply in it I would've found interesting to read.
I don't think Tree mode is alone, in this respect.
>>22
That's true, and your Tree mode is still better than /prog/'s linear/5-post-preview mode (in which interesting posts get covered by the tons of shitposts)
>>26
At least they would be in their own threads.
The branches should get sorted with the ones with most children on top, ordered by date when their children number is the same. All the shitposts would gather in the end, with active, interesting threads on top. Sure, the shitposters could just shit on them, but having to open them would be too much effort.
In the beginning was the verb, then the verb got a reply, and the reply got replies, and some forgot to sage. Replies were leaf of this recursive structure stochastically genereted and known as the Tree of Knowledge...