I am down to one question

[Michael B. Ross]

Ignore the question below. I figured it out.

I continue to find this board confusing, overwhelming and too complicated. But, I see the future, and I know I need to commit to this new system.

There are several nuances to this board I will leave as a mystery--I can live with them. There is one item, however, I would like to resolve.

When I read a thread, is there a way to determine to which post I should link a reply? Is there a setting I can change so I can determine if, for example, post #8 in a thread was a reply to post #2?

[Mark Bolerjack]

If you click on "Quote" instead of "Reply", the message you are referring to will be included in the body of your post. You can edit out part of the quote if you want to and just include the phrase or sentence you are replying to.

[Marsha Lynn]

When I read a thread, is there a way to determine to which post I should link a reply? Is there a setting I can change so I can determine if, for example, post #8 in a thread was a reply to post #2?
I find this to be one of the remaining frustrations I have here. I've settled on the "hybrid view" as my default setting. In that view (and in the threaded view) the structure of the thread is at the top of the screen and the posts below. (All the posts for the hybrid view, one at a time for the threaded view.) However, if it's a long thread, I have to scroll down in the thread structure to see where I want to jump in to read the latest posts. Clicking on one will take me to the post I want, but I have to go back to the top and scroll through the structure again to see where I want to go next.

Those who use the linear view never see the structure of the thread, so they tend to stick their comments on at the end regardless of which previous comment they're addressing. The thread ends up looking like a chat window where two or three conversations are going on simultaneously and you have to guess which response goes with which previous comment.

That's frustrating.

So, the answer is, you can switch to hybrid or threaded mode and see the structure of the thread, which is helpful, but the threads don't branch out as cleanly as they did in the old software. Post #8 may indeed be a response to post #2. If everyone would hit the quote button at the bottom of the post to which they are responding, even if they then delete the quotation, it would help.

At least that's what I'm seeing. Maybe someone else can provide some insight on this.

Marsha

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

To things come to mind: when you are looking at someone's message, look in the upper right side of the message box and you will see "Display Modes" -- for what you want to do, you need either the Hybrid or Threaded mode. It is very clear which message was typed in response to what.

Second, when you are answering a message click on the "Quote" button in the lower right hand side of the message box. That gives you a type in box that has the message you are answering already quoted in the box. Anyone, no matter what view they are using can see exactly what you are answering.

I usually edit their post down to the part of the message I am actually responding to -- and I put my reply at the top rather than under theirs.



When I read a thread, is there a way to determine to which post I should link a reply? Is there a setting I can change so I can determine if, for example, post #8 in a thread was a reply to post #2?

[Marsha Lynn]

As a test, I hit the 'reply' icon in Scott's post for this one, rather than the 'quote' icon. Let's see where my response goes.

Edit: It was put in the proper place in the thread. I'm not sure how people respond to a post and end up with their response at the bottom of the thread rather in the branch to which they're responding. They must be using the quick reply box at the bottom of the screen.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

For my test, I just hit the "reply" button, upper left side of the thread view -- I think this one will show as a reply to the first post in the thread.

EDIT:
Nope, it showed as a reply to the last message in the thread rather than the first one.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think it is a strength and a weakness of the software. It is a weakness in the ways you describe it. People generally just hit "Reply" and start typing without being careful to be sure they are putting their thoughts in the thread where they belong.

The strength is that the format tends to keep threads on subject. I have had times on the past on NazNet when I was frustrated that a meaningful discussion got hijacked by someone who wanted to say something funny or simply took the conversation off in a totally different direction.

Somehow, this software encourages people to stay on topic. In fact, there is a process by which moderators can even move posts or entire threads to where they belong -- again, the writers of the software seem pretty committed to encourage real discussion that stays on topic.

I find this to be one of the remaining frustrations I have here...Those who use the linear view never see the structure of the thread, so they tend to stick their comments on at the end regardless of which previous comment they're addressing.
Marsha

[Grandma Carolyn]

Scott said,
"The strength is that the format tends to keep threads on subject. I have had times on the past on NazNet when I was frustrated that a meaningful discussion got hijacked by someone who wanted to say something funny or simply took the conversation off in a totally different direction.

Somehow, this software encourages people to stay on topic. In fact, there is a process by which moderators can even move posts or entire threads to where they belong -- again, the writers of the software seem pretty committed to encourage real discussion that stays on topic."



Well, Scott, you just hurt my feelings. I'm sure that it was me that was guilty of all of the above on the old forum.

However, I wasn't guilty of not staying in a thread. Many would take the subject to the top of the board and that often killed the conversation just as much as my being guilty of contributing something to a thread that would take it in a different direction. But, honestly, that is the way most conversations that I have in real life go. And, it's not always me that thinks of something to say that leads the conversation to another subject when I'm having a conversation with my friends.

I think it happens often when people are having a discussion. So, many comments will trigger a person's memory of other things that they want to comment on and when they do there goes the original subject. But, we did have an enjoyable time of sharing.

I'm not going as far as to say that I am going to find another board to participate on, but, I will say that I will be much more aware of my comments in a thread if they don't "fit". It will probably just limit my sharing because I may not have a lot to contribute to the subject.

On second thought, I'm wondering if I should be brave enough to go ahead and post my response to you about your feelings of how the conversations go off in other directions. It not really the subject of this thread, but, it is a response to comments that you made.

So, maybe this new software is not really what I like, because to me it kills the freedom to respond as if I were having a real conversation in real life with a real live friend. But, again, maybe that isn't the purpose of NazNet. Maybe, I don't understand the concept of "Fellowship."

PS: I probably just revealed all my insecurity about not having the ability to contribute worthwhile information. I can tell everything I know about any given subject in about two sentences. So, guess I will be more aware of my posting, and will be careful and not get people off the subject of the thread that is being discussed. I may have to stop what I'm doing and just go start another thread.

Sorry, I just got a button pushed. This is important enough to me that I am responding. I've really been working hard to not react to people. But, you hit to close to home and it got to me.

**GC**

I think it is a strength and a weakness of the software. It is a weakness in the ways you describe it. People generally just hit "Reply" and start typing without being careful to be sure they are putting their thoughts in the thread where they belong.

The strength is that the format tends to keep threads on subject. I have had times on the past on NazNet when I was frustrated that a meaningful discussion got hijacked by someone who wanted to say something funny or simply took the conversation off in a totally different direction.

Somehow, this software encourages people to stay on topic. In fact, there is a process by which moderators can even move posts or entire threads to where they belong -- again, the writers of the software seem pretty committed to encourage real discussion that stays on topic.

[Barbara Moulton]

Actually, that was one aspect of the new software that I recently noticed too Carolyn. It doesn't lend itself as easily to the conversational feeling that we would find in the threads with the old software. I am thinking of the silly bantering that might go on in the middle of a thread or a joke that someone would insert.

I guess that sometimes the bantering did detract from the thread, but more often, it reminded me that I was talking to real people, not just responding to words on a screen.

For the most part, I do like the software now that I am used to it. But it was just in the past few days that I realized this changed dynamic. It was interesting to see you put it into words.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Well, Scott, you just hurt my feelings. I'm sure that it was me that was guilty of all of the above on the old forum.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Please accept my apology.

[Grandma Carolyn]

Actually, that was one aspect of the new software that I recently noticed too Carolyn. It doesn't lend itself as easily to the conversational feeling that we would find in the threads with the old software. I am thinking of the silly bantering that might go on in the middle of a thread or a joke that someone would insert.

I guess that sometimes the bantering did detract from the thread, but more often, it reminded me that I was talking to real people, not just responding to words on a screen.

For the most part, I do like the software now that I am used to it. But it was just in the past few days that I realized this changed dynamic. It was interesting to see you put it into words.

Oh, barbara, thank you so much for sharing that you recognized it to. And, thank you for sharing that the bantering made the conversation like you were talking and communicating with real people.

Another point with me is that sometimes in a conversation something is said and it just triggers something important to me that I feel I want to share or learn about. If I don't do it right then, well, time goes by and the opportunity is lost.

I was feeling really childish, and guilty for being childish, by sharing my reaction here with Scott the way I did. Thanks for letting me know that I am not the only one that didn't mind the little side trips that we sometimes take in conversations.

Carolyn

[Grandma Carolyn]

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Please accept my apology.

I accept your apology. That is kind of you to respond that way.

I know you wouldn't do it on purpose to hurt my feelings. It's just that I related so much to what you said about threads that bothered you that it made me sad, because I think that is so much of the way that I am when I post.

Now, if I get off the subject in a thread are you going to move it and start another thread with it?

**GC**

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Now, if I get off the subject in a thread are you going to move it and start another thread with it?

**GC**

I think you are not understanding why a message would be moved. Most of the time it would only happen if someone accidentally posted to the wrong thread.

I guess if someone replied to a prayer request with a post totally unrelated to the request that I would try to find a place where it would better fit. It just wouldn't be fair to the person who asked for prayer.

[Grandma Carolyn]

I think you are not understanding why a message would be moved. Most of the time it would only happen if someone accidentally posted to the wrong thread.

I guess if someone replied to a prayer request with a post totally unrelated to the request that I would try to find a place where it would better fit. It just wouldn't be fair to the person who asked for prayer.

Well, if that is what you meant, yes, I can understand that. That is quite logical. :)

**GC**

[Alex Manly]

So how is the weather in <insert your state>:basic05 :basic05 :basic05 :basic05

[Grandma Carolyn]

So how is the weather in <insert your state>: :basic05 :basic05

You are pushing the envelope!:basic05 :fun03
**GC**

[Hans Deventer]

I think it is a strength and a weakness of the software. It is a weakness in the ways you describe it. People generally just hit "Reply" and start typing without being careful to be sure they are putting their thoughts in the thread where they belong.

I tend to use the "quote" option, even if I delete the quote :basic03 That helps.