Suggestions on promoting reply

Thanks but the back arrow is only working before starting typing the reply.

If you want to enable it that way the you need a third botton, "remove original quote". In this way the replier can reread the posting replied to, despite it is just also there above the reply area.

Automating this and having the button can cooperate by skipping the question if the remove original quote button is used.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18442067
Mmm doesn't like when people do what you did with your post ...

Indeed, El General, himself triggered me to start this thread.

The long quoted text obscure previous postings by pushing them out of view and making the user have to scroll up and down again.

mmmfotografie wrote in post #18442272
Thanks but the back arrow is only working before starting typing the reply.

After you have already typed something and want to remove quotes, then that is a two-click operation:

Click "Quote tools" -> click "REMOVE INNERMOST QUOTE". If there are nested quotes, each click of that command removes one level, starting from the deepest.

mmmfotografie wrote in post #18442259
It really nice to read that you all think that I am sweet by refering to me by writing "mmm" however I do no touching and especially no licking with strangers.

mmmfotografie

Lol

I am going on the assumption those are your initials.

I could use another abbreviation but that one isn't so nice.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18442450
Lol
I am going on the assumption those are your initials.

The third "m" is standing for "model" and my parents did not know that I got a hobby as photographer. So they are not my innitials and those are in fact M.G.J. as given by my parents and their parents on my fathers side (last two). The first letter is something my patents agreed on.

My question to you would like if I referred to you as being "Lefty"?

OK then I keep my original suggestion only because it has to be very easy for the users.

mmmfotografie wrote in post #18442643
OK then I keep my original suggestion only because it has to be very easy for the users.

mmmfotografie wrote in post #18441973
The quote is converted to a reply post after showing an option to replier to revert this.
Default: YES, please use reply
Option: NO, I want quote the complete text

Multi quote can be exempted of this rule.

Can you please explain step by step what your suggestion means, because it the two suggestions I gave do not solve the problem then I have misunderstood the dilemma. What does "YES, please use reply" mean?

I won't add any question popups when editor opens, they will become very annoying after few times.

mmmfotografie wrote in post #18442642
My question to you would like if I referred to you as being "Lefty"?

I have been called much worse! Really though, it wouldn't bother me at all, in fact it has happened a few times on the forum.

It's a good day if I don't catch my boys flicking buggers, or stabbing each other with a stick. Most other stuff barely makes a blip on my radar.

The quote is converted to a reply post after showing an option to replier to revert this.

Default: YES, please use reply
Option: NO, I want quote the complete text

My suggestion is to default use "REMOVE INNERMOST QUOTE" on "SUBMIT" in postings in which user did not use "SPLIT QUOTE". This because the quote, does not contain any extra information what was not already in the thread.
If a user want to refresh his or hers mind when reading the latest postings then that is covered with the top line: XX hours ago as a reply to post xxxxxx | #xx

When pressing the ...reply to... line can also trigger an pop-up which is showing the a text only version of the replied to posting. Control suggestion: close button and right-top and "X" and a "READ FULL POSTING" button that also closes the pop-up but transfer the browser to the replied to posting just like now is the case if a user clicks/taps the ...reply to.... line.

When this suggested conversion is going to be applied the user get an pop-up or an other screen in which this conversion can be overruled by the user by changing the default selection to "NO, I want quote the complete text".

Alternative you can use an checkbox with this text above it: "The system detected that you fully quoted the replied to posting, do you want really do that? Then you you have to check the box underneath and click/tap "SUBMIT".

It seems to me the most straightforward approach from a user standpoint would be for a quoted reply to default to a display of maybe four or five lines of the quoted post, which would be in view automatically. Then, with a 'Show more/less' toggle, a viewer could make their own choice of whether to look at the full text or not.

Anyone wanting to focus attention on a particular point they are responding to would be sensible to make sure they edited the quoted text so that it featured in the top few lines of their reply.

People who want to read quoted posts in detail still have the option right there for them. People who want to skim through aren't overloaded with long quoted text. Everybody wins.

Of course, it is easy to talk about things that it would be 'nice to have'. To actually have it, somebody else is going to have to find an efficient way of putting it into practice ... and we know who that is, so I'm not going to bang on too much about this. I'm grateful for what we already get.

Thinking about it some more, perhaps the options would be 'show more, show less, hide' for this to work best.

DaviSto wrote in post #18442724
It seems to me the most straightforward approach from a user standpoint would be for a quoted reply to default to a display of maybe four or five lines of the quoted post, which would be in view automatically. Then, with a 'Show more/less' toggle, a viewer could make their own choice of whether to look at the full text or not.

By "a user standpoint," do you mean to refer to the person who replies to a post or the person ("viewer") who reads the reply?

I think mmm's proposal amounts to converting a post to REPLY mode when a replier presses QUOTE. The replier who really wants to quote a post, or part of it, must then press another button. I don't wish for this change. If I want to reply without quoting, I'll use REPLY. If I want to quote, I'll use QUOTE. Please don't make me go through another step to get what I asked for the first time.

OhLook wrote in post #18442852
I don't wish for this change. If I want to reply without quoting, I'll use REPLY. If I want to quote, I'll use QUOTE. Please don't make me go through another step to get what I asked for the first time.

It's that simple.

Why is this unnecessary discussion even taking place?

OhLook wrote in post #18442852
By "a user standpoint," do you mean to refer to the person who replies to a post or the person ("viewer") who reads the reply?

I meant both. For the 'user' making a reply, nothing would be different from the way its is now ... except maybe that they would know that only the first few lines of what they are quoting would show up automatically for people viewing it. So it would make sense for them to edit the quote so that somebody viewing/reading it would immediately see the particular thing they were commenting on.

For the 'user' viewing/reading a reply, the quote would still be there but truncated down to just a few lines. They can click to see more if they want to ... or to hide it altogether.

I was drawing a distinction between 'users', who make and read posts, and El General who has taken on the task of building the forum. I have no idea what kind of challenge realising this would amount to, and so I'm just putting the idea out there. I'm not campaigning for it.

saea501 wrote in post #18442862
Why is this unnecessary discussion even taking place?

I agree it's not a very important discussion ... but there is a point to it.

Some replies include very long quotes from earlier posts ... even when, perhaps, that's just the immediate post ahead of them. Viewed on a smartphone screen (especially) but sometimes also on a lap-top (some otherwise excellent posters have a tendency towards essay writing), this can add up to a wall of unnecessary words before you get to the main content of the reply, and it can mean that there is less context/history on-screen from other posts in the thread, which just get pushed put.

It would be good to find a simple way around that. It's not a critical issue and I'm surely not going to get very worked up about it. But it's worth discussing, at least.