• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Any chance of a 'general reply' button?

Login/Join to Participate

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:I don't know how easy it would be to do this, but it would be great if we could have the option of replying to a thread, rather than just a specific individuals reply on that thread.

At the moment we can directly quote a reply, or use the 'quick reply' box; however the 'quick reply' slips in a 're:whoever the last poster was'.

I know at the last board alteration this was mentioned. and there was talk of sorting it out.

It's a point of potential confusion, many of my posts are simply not directed to the people they are being made out to be (by the 're:' bit that's inserted at the top of my post box).

Hopefully, if anyone else feels similarly they can mention it and it can be prioritised on a future board update, or, even better, if it's an easy fix, it could be addressed sooner.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete Topic

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction

Total posts: 13215
Posted:I find that when I read a post, depending on various factors, I can determine if it is a response to the previous post of to the thread in general.
And when I feel there might be confusion, I usually try to mention specific names or say "back to the topic" or something like that!


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

Tao Star


Tao Star

Pooh-Bah
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 1662
Posted:yeah, i don't really ever read the bit at the top of post - i guess some people probably do, but you can normally tell if it's specific or general.

I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:OK, points take on board and I see what you mean. The way the board works is every reply has to be a child of another post.

What Is can do is just a simple work around, which is ok as nobody really uses the threaded view (last I checked 2 people did and they didn't even post!).

I'll simply remove the [Re: whomever] field.

This an ok compromise for you dave?


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:That's true. Once you're familiar with the board you can usually tell whether a given reply is actually directed to the person that the 're:' bit points to- a problem is that newbies aren't aware of this peculiarity of the reply function.

And it's true that in replying, a bit of extra text can dispel any potential confusion, it's just a shame that it's necessary.

Additionally, and somewhat ironically, the fact the the quick reply always defaults to pointing towards the last poster means that, in the event that you do actually intend to address the last poster you need to take the additional step of specifically stating it, or using the 'quote' function.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Dom

OK, points take on board and I see what you mean. The way the board works is every reply has to be a child of another post.

What Is can do is just a simple work around, which is ok as nobody really uses the threaded view (last I checked 2 people did and they didn't even post!).

I'll simply remove the [Re: whomever] field.

This an ok compromise for you dave?



Sounds good smile


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

meep
SILVER Member since Jul 2004

....
Location: Midlands - nr cov

Total posts: 344
Posted:That's cool. I tend to look at the "re" bit, and confuse myself occasionally. Doesn't take much smile

"But what would you do with a brain if you had one?"

Dorothy Gale

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:I'll simply remove the [Re: whomever] field.

Dom, I not sure if this is an improvement.

I and perhaps others, have got used to replying to a specific post, now I dunno who is replying to whom. Perhaps we need to address specific posts, but honestly Im lost.

What do other people think????


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:My issue was with the fact that just doing a general reply came up as a direct response to the last poster (in the [Re- ] field).

The approach of scrapping the [Re- ] field has cured that, but I've noticed that all previous posts on the board have lost the field as well, and, as those posts took place when the [Re- ] field did exist, there's potential confusion.

Also, as Stone is saying, some people did use it to intentionally reply to specific people.

Ideally, the thing could be set to keep the 'reply to' option, but the default of pointing to the last poster when using 'quick reply' be removed.

If that's not practical then the choice would seem to be the old set up, where general replies to the thread are impossible, or reinstate the [Re- ] field.

If the [Re- ] field is kept off, specific replies could be done using the 'reply with quote' function, one advantage of which would be that such posts would retain their integrity whatever is done to the [re- ] field in the future, as they would contain the relevant text segment and the name of the person you're replying to.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Dom
BRONZE Member since Dec 2001

Dom

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Bristol, UK

Total posts: 3009
Posted:
Not everyone takes notice of the Re: field and some posts reply to several different other posts. I see the potential confusion of removing the Re from previous posts as minimal and an acceptable outcome.

It would be better and most clear if people specifically stated in thier posts if they're replying to a specific individual or post. It only takes a bit longer to use the quote button, or to type "Dave, ...." and is a lot more effective than assuming everyone pays attention to the Re: field.


Delete

nearly_all_gone
SILVER Member since Aug 2004

nearly_all_gone

Pooh-Bah
Location: Southampton

Total posts: 1626
Posted:Nice one!

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau

Delete

...{SAFE}...


...{SAFE}...

"if i jump in the fire, will you?"
Location: USA, wishing I was in SA

Total posts: 633
Posted:"dom" - nice one biggrin !

great (easy ) solution to an (easy) problem.


i like breaking the Law frown , of Gravity wink !

Delete