I'm wondering, if it's possible to have post to have a post number visible
Further the ability to respond to an individual post, not the entire thread
An example can be found at
Cr4, an engineering forum
You will need to find a thread with a bunch of posts to see what I'm on about
Sounds very possible. The URL on your message is this:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=497406.msg3489930#msg3489930
Would likely be a matter of editing Display.template.php to echo that after the title/subject.
What is this Cr4 form using?
Hi, welcome, the annoying captcha goes away at ten posts.
What you ask is commonly called "threaded mode" or "threaded topics" and there are several topics here asking for the same thing:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=search2;search=%22threaded+mode%22
and it always have been rejected for multiple reasons, currently there is no mod that can achieve this and there isn't any plan to implement it as a core feature either.
Thanks for the responses
Cr4 is custom
Threaded avoids all the fussing about fullquotes
Can't get there from here
Too bad
The search continues.....
threaded forums are, for the most part, unpopular.
Threading takes MANY more resources... and it discourages COMMUNITY conversation, making it into one on one conversations.
I would also strongly encourage you to read http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/12/web-discussions-flat-by-design.html
Quote from: Kindred on February 13, 2013, 01:48:19 PM
threaded forums are, for the most part, unpopular.
Threading takes MANY more resources... and it discourages COMMUNITY conversation, making it into one on one conversations.
Interesting, the strong reaction
I've commited some local blaspheme
Sorry
I really have no idea what "COMMUNITY conversation" is?
The whole point of a forum is to build a comunity. To have conversations between members... not one on one, but with the entire community participating.
Threaded views encourage people to talk one-to-one in lots of little semi-private conversations rather than discussing things as a group.
(I have been running forums since before there was an internet, so I DO know what I am talking about)
If this thread were a threaded conversation it would pretty much be 4 separate mini conversations rather than one 'thread'.
Quote from: Kindred on February 14, 2013, 01:24:13 AM
The whole point of a forum is to build a comunity. To have conversations between members... not one on one, but with the entire community participating.
Threaded views encourage people to talk one-to-one in lots of little semi-private conversations rather than discussing things as a group.
(I have been running forums since before there was an internet, so I DO know what I am talking about)
I'm unclear as to why threaded would take more resources?
I guess the database is much different, with no unique identifiers...
Every thread has fibers within the thread, every thread is one or more one to one conversations, otherwise it's a speech/blog
It blows that most forums have gone to the soundbyte/Facebook mode[big pile of words]
Choice is good
Easy enough to make threaded display chronologically
Threaded provides context, which a poster may or maynot provide in chronological.
But no pushing the river upstream
Thanks for taking the time to respond
I await the inevitable verbal beat down
Quote from: Arantor on February 13, 2013, 02:18:43 PM
I would also strongly encourage you to read http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/12/web-discussions-flat-by-design.html
That is opinion,no facts or data
A classic technique to convert opinion to relevancy
That the author can't keep upwith multiple fibers within a thread, is a personal preference & has no bearing on much of anything
The link within, advocates for a dictatorial style of administration, nothing wrong with that, as long as one likes the flavor of the koolaid being dished up
QuoteI'm unclear as to why threaded would take more resources?
I guess the database is much different, with no unique identifiers...
Aside from having to store where every post has to have a parent message on top of a thread to be contained within (which amounts to an extra 4 bytes for every message, plus another 7-8+ depending on style of index)... that's not really the problem.
The problem is physically querying the database to get it. I know a lot about this, having been working on trying to solve an efficient way of doing it in MySQL for a long time.
SQL databases are simply not designed for this kind of data. They cannot store it or query it efficiently. They can do one or the other, not both. The figures I gave are for efficient storage, not efficient querying. Efficient querying would require storing an astronomical amount of data in an SQL storage engine, almost exponentially magnifying the data storage requirements. (Not to mention that vastly more data storage ALSO has a performance impact too, as the primary limit on larger systems is not CPU but I/O)
QuoteThreaded provides context, which a poster may or maynot provide in chronological.
Flat can also provide context. The very fact you're quoting posts is providing context. It's just doing it without the constraints you're expecting it to have.
QuoteA classic technique to convert opinion to relevancy
It's no more or less relevant than your opinion. I simply presented it as a relevant opinion, coming from someone who actually runs a very large community. (I personally have issues with the dictatorial style of administration, but that's just me.)
QuoteBut no pushing the river upstream
Thanks for taking the time to respond
I await the inevitable verbal beat down
Now that kind of sarcasm is unwarranted, unnecessary and irrelevant. The bottom line is SMF does not support this, the SMF management do not particularly want to support it because it doesn't fit in with how the web works.
I find it interesting to note that both vBulletin and IPB - which are paid systems, and therefore the users dictate what features they want to see and will go elsewhere if the features are not forthcoming - also both *ditched* this feature because of the performance issues (among other reasons) it brought with it.
You believe what you want to believe, but the reality is that it isn't going to happen. I should also note that if anyone's going to bash SMF for a lack of development, I'm first in that queue - and if *I'm* defending their position, you can rest assured that it ain't gonna happen.
Garthhh,
Opinion backed by experience becomes relevence.
Seriously. I have been playing on forums since 1986 and running forums since 1988.
I tell you - FROM EXPERIENCE - that so-called threaded discussions do not contribute to the sense of community and the community discussion.
The commentary posted in that link, while presented cleverly and in dialogue format rather than cold facts *IS* accurate.
and yes... threaded dicussions actually DO use more resources, are much more complex to code and limit what and admin can do in terms of associating and reassociating (e.g. moving, splitting and merging)
and, until you have actually LOOKED AT and UNDERSTOOD the coding involved, don't you dare going saying "it's easy enough to do..."
It isn't actually...
As for most forums going to the facebook method... you are very wrong there.
this method predates facebook and even the internet (heck this FORUM predates facebook). Facebook just implemented the popular method
@Garthhh I suggest you to look elsewhere if you want to satisfy your needs, no point in keep arguing if everyone has already set their minds on the matter, better just look for alternatives and move on.
One option for threaded discussions: Slashcode (http://slashcode.com/). It's the software running Slashdot.
And they faced the same problem with regards storage (since last I checked it was using MySQL as a backend, at least it was when I first started researching this) and their method at the time was to just grab every single reply in the tree and figure out the mess afterwards.
The only saving grace to that approach is that it's only mildly taxing on MySQL, but incredibly wasteful in all other respects.
Quote from: Arantor on February 15, 2013, 06:58:01 PM
And they faced the same problem with regards storage (since last I checked it was using MySQL as a backend, at least it was when I first started researching this) and their method at the time was to just grab every single reply in the tree and figure out the mess afterwards.
The only saving grace to that approach is that it's only mildly taxing on MySQL, but incredibly wasteful in all other respects.
Thanks for taking the time to post an explanation
That it is a technical limitation of MySQL, explains a bit
I could argue the organizational merits of more automatic context, both on & off line
In the end I can't get there from here
Enjoy...