Suggestions on promoting reply

New bottom button, readers screen, total number of bottom buttons: three.

Screen: readers screen. Button name: conversation. Shown: if there is more than one reply to between the users.

Refreshed readers screen after pressing the new button. Shown: more than two postings.

Location reply (last) posting: bottom of the readers screen. Location replied to posting: above the reply posting. Scrollbar activation: if text/ activated pictures take more space than total height of the readers screen. Starting position scrollbar if text is longer than total height reader screen: bottom of screen. Initial available scroll direction on oversize: up. Showing scrollbar: transparency gradient applied to text/picture on the top part of the screen. Direction gradient: max transparency: top, min transparency: bottom. Total height of transparency area: 3 to 5 text lines.

Purpose is to give the reader a screen where the whole conversation between the last reply and the first posting is readable that occurred between the last reply and the first replied to posting. The minimal number of postings displayed: two and the maximum number is the lifetime (real life or forum lifetime) and ability of keeping up producing new text or pictures by the two users. Maximum of participants in conversation: two. Minimum number of participants in a conversation: one (some people talk to themselves).

Warning: the text below can be disturbing to the readers mind!!! Proceed with care and if you are not up to such then leave and never return to this specific part of this posting.

External influenced conversation lifetime: patience of the moderator, cleaning obsolete posts in database, an of course total POTN lifetime, limited by lifetime/ interest by Pekka or successors or availability of currency or other means of payment/exchange to keep POTN a-life.

Mean threats, limiting the lifetime of posting and ability to post due to: total black-out, ISIS not liking the Nude section of POTN repeating a "Charlie Hebdo", human population being replaced by robots/AI, invasion terrestrial or non terrestrial, conventional and/or nuclear war, total lifetime of humanity and in case of total automation lifetime earth. Availability electricity is guaranteed by fusion reactors on the Moon with an reservation on a celestial collision.

Question to Pekka, are there plans to expand POTN outside the earth because then I have take more possibilities in account to answer all the possible questions in up front.

--------

Enough bla bla and I am going to get some more sleep that I missed earlier.

When reading the thread the QUOTE button is replaced by a CONVERSATION button which is only displayed when the REPLY button is used by the poster for that posting.

This is the reader screen that is show when a member clicks / taps the conversation button.

I made a mock-up of the reader screen.

It's hard for me to believe that we have burned through four pages of 'discussion' so that one member of a forum of several thousand people can have one very specific thing corrected that seems to bother him. One thing that doesn't seem to bother many, if any, others I might add.

But, who am I?

Carry on with your frivolity.

I believe that one can evolve. The discussing completed the setup I was thinking of. There are already mayor parts of the workings in place on the moment so. Structual there are no changes needed.

The technical work is into implement the reader screen. None of yhe current available options are taken away and the single qoute is just two clicks further away, than in the current workings of POTN.

The members have to give up the easy access to the single quote and get back a screen, that displays the whole conversation in one reader screen. Doing away with obsolete information and bundels the chain of postings that the two members exchanged in a chronological way. On the bottom the last post and scroll up to first replied to post.

This a big step for the members who are used to 'blindly' press the quote button and are so cluthering the view, reducing readability in a major way.

They still can do that, but not blindly any more.

mmmfotografie wrote in post #18443599
Doing away with obsolete information and bundels the chain of postings that two members exchanged.

How many series of posts are dialogues that consist only of multiple exchanges between two members? When there's a discussion, more than two usually join in.

I would say "conveniently" rather than "blindly."

mmmfotografie wrote in post #18443403
When reading the thread the QUOTE button is replaced by a CONVERSATION button which is only displayed when the REPLY button is used by the poster for that posting.

This is the reader screen that is show when a member clicks / taps the conversation button.

In this reader screen the SHOW CONVERSATION button is shown or active when there are more that two postings between the two members in this specific thread. To read the whole conversation one has use the scroll bar or scroll wheel on the mouse and the the direction is first up before one can scroll down again.

That is just a long-winded, convoluted way of doing what we can already do.

Yes, now drive cars and not travel any more by horse couch. It is not better for the environment but is that faster and easier.

OhLook wrote in post #18443613
I would say "conveniently" rather than "blindly."

john crossley wrote in post #18443640
That is just a long-winded, convoluted way of doing what we can already do.

Yes, but one member got what he wanted. Apparently, that's all that matters.

........whew......I'm so glad that's taken care of.

OhLook wrote in post #18443613
How many series of posts are dialogues that consist only of multiple exchanges between two members? When there's a discussion, more than two usually join in.

Multi quote is untouched just like split quote. Only single quote is addressed and that can be only between two person or the same person.

The chain exists of replied to and reply postings between the same member(s).
The thread is shown without the single quotes and if they are present then there is the MORE button which replaces the QUOTE button (this a shorter name covering and drawing attention of the reader).

Multiple members with single quotes are ignored and only the reply starts the chain to which it replied to.
In a later the stage multiple single + multi quote can be sequenced in chronologically way but it will reduce also the clearness of the suggested reader screen.

Personally it would not go that way.

I am not alone, I am just not afraid to sticking my neck out. It makes one not populair in a group I know.

I will not answer to any more psychological sides in this treadh.

mmmfotografie wrote in post #18443599
I believe that one can evolve. The discussing completed the setup I was thinking of. There are already mayor parts of the workings in place on the moment so. Structual there are no changes needed.

The technical work is into implement the reader screen. None of yhe current available options are taken away and the single qoute is just two clicks further away, than in the current workings of POTN.

The members have to give up the easy access to the single quote and get back a screen, that displays the whole conversation in one reader screen. Doing away with obsolete information and bundels the chain of postings that the two members exchanged in a chronological way. On the bottom the last post and scroll up to first replied to post.

This a big step for the members who are used to 'blindly' press the quote button and are so cluthering the view, reducing readability in a major way.

They still can do that, but not blindly any more.

Members may quote from any threads they think is relevant to the discussion, they can refer to photos that are in other threads and posts. The threads are not discussions between two persons, so viewing only those would omit a lot. Also, posts which have been done using "POST TO THREAD" are essentially replies to the first post of that thread (even if the reply is quoted with something else and as a reply to some specific post), which would not fit well in when ordering by who replied to who.

What you suggest would essentially mean a more complex user-interface, more commands for rarely needed features for things that can be done in conventional methods like opening tabs and clicking links.

Thanks for the time you took to explain this, and although it may not be implemented you have brought this viewpoint to my attention.

I was writing on my small tablet a reply until the battery was depleted in he middle of the reply. I am depleted too so I will say thanks also for your time and till the next opportunity on this.

Marcel

Fullscreen view: