Site Feedback Thread

14 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Reply button

Back to Forum: Site Feedback
  • User profile image
    Bas

    I'd really like it if you guys would reconsider the function of the reply button on posts. I'm seeing way to many posts where people apparently reply to a specific post, but the text of the post indicates that they intended to reply to the thread. I think this happens because most people assume (even subconciously) that clicking a reply button means replying to the thread. This sort of thing never happened in v3 because the reply-to-post button was a very specific, unambiguous button, namely the quote button. The text "Reply" is very ambiguous, and as demonstrated, a lot of time people mistakenly use it when they had meant to use something else.

    In my opinion, the best solution would be two buttons: A "Reply to Post" and a "Reply" or "Reply to thread" button on every post. I think that'd clear up a lot of the confusion, both for people who post and those wo read a post that wasn't meant as a reply to someone.

  • User profile image
    Sampy

    You can change if you're replying to root or to the post specified inside the editor.

    Is that not discoverable enough?

  • User profile image
    wisemx

    Sampy said:
    You can change if you're replying to root or to the post specified inside the editor.

    Is that not discoverable enough?
    I thought it was clear enough...If most people would just look. Big Smile

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    Sampy said:
    You can change if you're replying to root or to the post specified inside the editor.

    Is that not discoverable enough?
    Maybe you could add some information bubbles, like Facebook does when it introduces new features. You know, like the balloon tooltips in the Windows notification area. And when the user closes the bubble, he implicitely acknowledges he has seen the new feature and it won't be shown to him again.

  • User profile image
    jh71283

    Sampy said:
    You can change if you're replying to root or to the post specified inside the editor.

    Is that not discoverable enough?
    how about making 'Reply to root' the default then?

    Most ppl are generally contributing to the conversation, to to one direct person.

    We just don't want to wear out your radio button so that you have to replace them. They are starting to squeak already.

  • User profile image
    Human​Compiler

    jh71283 said:
    Sampy said:
    *snip*
    how about making 'Reply to root' the default then?

    Most ppl are generally contributing to the conversation, to to one direct person.

    We just don't want to wear out your radio button so that you have to replace them. They are starting to squeak already.
    It defaults to reply to root if you click the root (in the header or footer) button (and is the only choice actually).

    The problem with defaulting it to the root all the time is that then there will almost never be anyone that replies to a person specifically.  I would challenge your assumption of "Most ppl are generally contributing to the conversation, to to one direction person".  Can you prove that, because I think the opposite is true (hence our current design).

    Take this thread as an example.  Sampy is the only one that replied to the "root".  Everyone else replied to a person in the thread (and I believe that was their intentions).

    It's a tough one to prove either way.  You can't just go through the data, you have to read through each comment and verify what they really meant.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    HumanCompiler said:
    jh71283 said:
    *snip*
    It defaults to reply to root if you click the root (in the header or footer) button (and is the only choice actually).

    The problem with defaulting it to the root all the time is that then there will almost never be anyone that replies to a person specifically.  I would challenge your assumption of "Most ppl are generally contributing to the conversation, to to one direction person".  Can you prove that, because I think the opposite is true (hence our current design).

    Take this thread as an example.  Sampy is the only one that replied to the "root".  Everyone else replied to a person in the thread (and I believe that was their intentions).

    It's a tough one to prove either way.  You can't just go through the data, you have to read through each comment and verify what they really meant.
    I'll agree.  95% of the time, I'm replying to a specific person (and need context to be there).  On the rare occasion that I want to reply to the root, I'll just click the reply button on that post or check "reply to root."  It's not that hard.

    (BTW, does the darker yellow color mean you're an MSFT poster?  Might want to make that a little clearer.)

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    HumanCompiler said:
    *snip*
    I'll agree.  95% of the time, I'm replying to a specific person (and need context to be there).  On the rare occasion that I want to reply to the root, I'll just click the reply button on that post or check "reply to root."  It's not that hard.

    (BTW, does the darker yellow color mean you're an MSFT poster?  Might want to make that a little clearer.)

    On my monitor, it doesn't look like dark yellow, it looks like smoked salmon.

    And yes, I'm replying to CRS and not to the thread. I agree with CRS.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Sampy said:
    You can change if you're replying to root or to the post specified inside the editor.

    Is that not discoverable enough?
    You can change if you're replying to root or to the post specified inside the editor.

    Is that not discoverable enough?


    Apparently not, because the mistake gets made often, along with the lamentation that "damn it, why can't I edit that?"

    The problem with defaulting it to the root all the time is that then there will almost never be anyone that replies to a person specifically.  I would challenge your assumption of "Most ppl are generally contributing to the conversation, to to one direction person".  Can you prove that, because I think the opposite is true (hence our current design).


    I'm not asserting that at all. I'm asserting that most people expect a 'reply' button to be a 'general' reply. The quote button, for instance, was a much more explicit way of saying "I'm replying to this specific guy that I'm quoting."



    Take this thread as an example.  Sampy is the only one that replied to the "root".  Everyone else replied to a person in the thread (and I believe that was their intentions).

    It's a tough one to prove either way.  You can't just go through the data, you have to read through each comment and verify what they really meant.


    Again, I'm not saying that most people want to reply to the thread. I'm saying that there's confusion. And I feel I can assert that because I'm seeing "Damn, this should have been a reply to the thread, not to randomguy" posts quite often. The reason for this confusion, I think, is that "Reply" is too vague. It's open to interpretation. And since "reply" in many forums means "reply to the thread", I'm guessing people expect that to happen here too. If it's paired with a "quote" or "Reply to guy" button, it's intention is much clearer.

  • User profile image
    wisemx

    TommyCarlier said:
    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    *snip*

    On my monitor, it doesn't look like dark yellow, it looks like smoked salmon.

    And yes, I'm replying to CRS and not to the thread. I agree with CRS.

    I use color correction and it does appear Salmon to me.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    wisemx said:
    TommyCarlier said:
    *snip*
    I use color correction and it does appear Salmon to me.
    Yeah, looks more salmon on this mac...  orange would have probably been a better description of how it looks on my personal (Windows) laptop.

    Bas:  (here's the flaw with the current quoting system: I can't reply to and quote more than one person per post)

    Two buttons would be more clear (reply and quote, just like every other forum on the planet or like the old c9).  I just don't think that there should be one button on each post which defaults to reply to root only.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    wisemx said:
    *snip*
    Yeah, looks more salmon on this mac...  orange would have probably been a better description of how it looks on my personal (Windows) laptop.

    Bas:  (here's the flaw with the current quoting system: I can't reply to and quote more than one person per post)

    Two buttons would be more clear (reply and quote, just like every other forum on the planet or like the old c9).  I just don't think that there should be one button on each post which defaults to reply to root only.
    Maybe not, no, but having a single button marked simply "Reply" is too ambiguous, I think. If anything, I'd just like the text on those per-post buttons changed to something that makes it a little clearer that you're replying to a particular post.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Bas said:
    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    *snip*
    Maybe not, no, but having a single button marked simply "Reply" is too ambiguous, I think. If anything, I'd just like the text on those per-post buttons changed to something that makes it a little clearer that you're replying to a particular post.
    Here's another conundrum: (imagine the buttons say "Reply" or whatever the text is for your locale)



    Which of these buttons replies to the thread, and which one replies to the post?


    And here's another scenario:

    "Well, I'm gonna read this thread.... That's an interesting post, and I have some remarks. But let's see if anyone else thought of that too.

    [...]

    Well, I'm done reading the thread, and am now at the bottom of the page. Let's post those remarks I wanted to make. Where's the reply button?"

    Uh oh. The only reply button visible is the one on the last post. But that's reply to post instead of reply to thread. How do you know? You can't know. It's trial and error.

    My suggestion: make a noticably different looking "Reply to Thread" button at the bottom of the page. And fix the button in the top post: having two buttons that look exactly the same yet have different functionality is asking for trouble.

  • User profile image
    jh71283

    HumanCompiler said:
    jh71283 said:
    *snip*
    It defaults to reply to root if you click the root (in the header or footer) button (and is the only choice actually).

    The problem with defaulting it to the root all the time is that then there will almost never be anyone that replies to a person specifically.  I would challenge your assumption of "Most ppl are generally contributing to the conversation, to to one direction person".  Can you prove that, because I think the opposite is true (hence our current design).

    Take this thread as an example.  Sampy is the only one that replied to the "root".  Everyone else replied to a person in the thread (and I believe that was their intentions).

    It's a tough one to prove either way.  You can't just go through the data, you have to read through each comment and verify what they really meant.
    Ok point taken.

    How about the ability to retrospectively alter whether it was a reply to poster or reply to root?

    I think that would sort out the issue from most fronts.

  • Conversation locked

    This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.