Threaded discussions?

[hungryonion]

Highlight the words you are replying to, click quote reply. That way, it becomes clearer who and what you are replying to. An example would be Pywacket’s post above

Threaded discussions?

I agree with LindaWhit. Very confusing at first. Even after getting the hang of it, I find it interferes with my reading. This style might be okay for general comments. But for organized, focused discussion, I also do not agree with the design decisions of this software’s maker.

Your reply will also have an icon that if clicked takes you back to the original post you are replying to.

Thanks.

[railwayhickory (fka random letters and numbers)]

@hungryonion

Highlight the words you are replying to, click quote reply. That way, it becomes clearer who and what you are replying to.

That works and is easy.

[biondanonima]

I don’t love having the general reply button at the bottom disabled altogether, because then if you actually WANT to reply to the original post, you have to go all the way back up to the top to do so. The lack of threaded discussions is really problematic, IMO, especially on threads like What’s for Dinner and others that tend to have a lot of tangential responses.

[Harters (John Hartley - a culinary patriot eating & cooking in Northwest England)]

@biondanonima

The lack of threaded discussions is really problematic

I can see how it may be a issue for folk not used to the “highlight” method suggested by hungryonion back on 16/10. Folk like me who have used Invision driven forums (like egullet) will not see it as a problem. Personally, I prefer the highlight method - but then that’s very much what I’m used to. It means that not only is it clear who I am replying to but it is also very clear, which bit of their post I’m commenting on.

[biondanonima]

@Harters

I prefer the highlight method - but then that’s very much what I’m used to.

Hm, I have never used this feature before - but I definitely see how it’s useful in forums like this. Thanks for the heads up!