[PAID] Thread view (AKA tree view)

[desynced]

Add me to the list rbeuker.  As for "not much requested", maybe it's because when people are looking for this feature, they find forum scripts that can do this (i.e. mylittleforum and phorum and others).   Not "hey, lets download, install, use, and then request it" lol.

And yes, there is a large demand for this type of view.   People like the old school UBB and WWWBoard style forums.   

Not to advertise other scripts, but if you google a little, you will see another major forum script removed it out of their new version and FINALLY realized they made a mistake and now working on bringing it back.  You will also see people requesting it on other forum scripts that do not currently support tree/threaded views. 

[Arantor]

Interesting, then, that MyBB (free), vBulletin (paid) and AFAIK IPB (paid) all offer this feature and yet most sites do not use it as standard. In fact, most sites that use those packages have it turned off anyway.

[rbeuker]

<makes a note>

Ok desynced, duly noted!

[bloc]

Interesting, then, that MyBB (free), vBulletin (paid) and AFAIK IPB (paid) all offer this feature and yet most sites do not use it as standard. In fact, most sites that use those packages have it turned off anyway.

Whats "most" sites? I am not trying to be clever..but it calls for some numbers. I too don't see it that often, but again, that might depend on what type of site and how often I do visit threaded viewed forums(which has the feature of course, that plays into it too)

It should not be a question whether "everyone" use it IMHO, but if its a usable feature or not. For that the SMF devs have to take a stand on it. Just as they did when they added paid subscriptions into it - which really isn't used that much either, but was deemed a good feature for SMF.

[Arantor]

Of all the vB forums I've seen over the past 3 years, I've only seen one that actually uses it and even then, it's the hybrid view, not full on threaded. But, as ever, having an observation is of course wrong without my going round thousands upon thousands of sites to collect hard data.

Fine, I'll amend that, then.

"Interesting, then, that MyBB (free), vBulletin (paid) and AFAIK IPB (paid) all offer this feature and yet most sites that I've seen, which is such an inconsequential amount of the internet that it renders that viewpoint invalid entirely, do not use it as standard." That more accurate for you?

[bloc]

For me? lol, I am not even asking for this feature, just pointing out the weakness of your argument. The devs haven't seemed too interested in adding thread view to SMF so far(or in this topic), so its more of an wish for a mod at this stage I think. 

Add me to the list rbeuker.  As for "not much requested", maybe it's because when people are looking for this feature, they find forum scripts that can do this (i.e. mylittleforum and phorum and others).   Not "hey, lets download, install, use, and then request it" lol.

And yes, there is a large demand for this type of view.   People like the old school UBB and WWWBoard style forums.   

This might be enough.

But as most things added to SMF, its important that someone wants to make it happen, as mod, or as a feature. I like the mapping ideas that was talked about(well, I talked about it lol) but I don't know if I will pursue that further, and then only by the way of themes, if at all possible...

Hope lies in someone coding mods would pick it up, possibly.

[MrMike]

Just my 2 cents....

Just so you know, I've been using and running forums since about 1998 or 1999. Forums aren't new to me.

Having a threaded view is actually very useful once you've tried it. For example:

- it helps separate the different "conversations" or sub-conversations within a topic or thread.

- It's nice to see what replies go back to what parent post without blocks of "quoted from..." text. Very easy to see who someone was replying to without having to reference the originating post.

- It's nice because it allows you to easily ignore sub-threads that go off on a tangent that you have no interest in.

- it helps group any sub-discussions that occur within a topic. Sometimes 'Clown A' and 'Clown B' will get into a squabble or crapfest amongst themselves...in a threaded view you can simply ignore that branch of the thread-tree without having to scroll by all of their nonsense, looking at every post to see if it's them or not. That is, instead of their stuff being mixed in linearly with all the real posts, it's kept nicely segregated in its own little branch.

I'd *love* for SMF to have a mod that would allow for a threaded view. Hell, I'd even contribute some cold, hard cash to such a project. If someone wanted to give this a whack, let me know. I'd provide whatever support I could.

[rbeuker]

Thanks, MrMike!

Very well said, I totally agree (of course).   Let me know when you have found someone who has the skills to build such a mod, and needs a bit of hard cash to get started--I don't think it's fair if only 1 person would pay for this!

Best regards,

Ronald

[rbeuker]

I have added a little [PAID] notice to the first message in this topic. I have no idea what we're paying though lol

[Suki]

This is still on my to-do list, just haven't really take time to analyze how exactly this should be done, I don't like to write mods that modifies lots and lots of Source or template files, make things like support a lot more difficult than it should be.

Regarding if this would be useful or not:

I do not visit that many sites so I don't have any idea on how popular this would be, all I know is that I find it useful and that is really all I need to give it a shot.

[Clara Listensprechen]

Hi all,

I think this deserves a second chance, but in a more positive way.  I have created a new topic here: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=444337.0

Best regards,

Ronald

Thanks for the kind words; I just realized that I'm still subscribed to the other topic and need to unsubscribe. I'm getting out of the foruming business altogether and going with the Google + group business instead. Less negativity, better navigation, high level of interaction and nearly zero headaches.

I'm done with SMF, absolutely. This bridge is permanently burnt.

[Clara Listensprechen]

nope, you are wrong.

instead of defend your smf policy of not implementing features, even if somebody offers to pay, you are showing that this project is almost death.

ALMOST death? It's dead alright. It's because just like Bill Gates, there are some coders who think they know what you want better than you do.

[Kindred]

lol.... we never claimed to know what YOU want. We just said that what YOU want is not what the general public wants and is not what we are going to develop.

[emanuele]

Hi rbeuker, few details on how you see this thread...panel?
Want to discuss a bit, I not in favour, but not against, in fact I don't care.

The implementation itself wouldn't be too difficult (in the end what you need is a parent column in the database and retrieve all the informations during the query).

So your target si something like:
http://mylittleforum.net/forum/index.php?id=6164
a single post per page with the tree below?

[rbeuker]

Hey emanuele!

Good to see you here again   Tutto va bene?

So your target si something like:
http://mylittleforum.net/forum/index.php?id=6164
a single post per page with the tree below?

Nice find! That's a very good example.   Personally, I'd like to see the 'map' (tree) above, and the message below--but I suppose that's not the most difficult thing. There should probably also be a toggle, so people can choose to use the regular display or the tree display.

If tree view has been activated, at first of course the very 1st message should be shown. And if, for example, you expect Alex to have a clever answer, you can click on his reply and see his message. What I don't know is if it would be an option (for the members) to choose whether they will see always 1 message (the message that they have clicked), or also all messages that are 'below' that one? So for example, look at that tree that you showed:



Would it be possible to click on the highlighted message, and get the message Alfie wrote, and also all replies (from Alex, Milo, Auge and Milo again), in the order that the tree view shows us?

3 more issues that I see are:

1. What happens when a message in the middle of a tree must be deleted. You will get orphans! There should be some sort of glue to fix such gaps...

2. With tree view activated, members are no longer replying to a topic, but to a specific message. Or could there be 2 buttons: "Reply to this message" and "Reply to this Topic" (when using the last button, a reply would be generated to the very 1st message in the topic).

3. When splitting a topic, it should be possible to split off all messages that are in the same part of the tree (starting from the message that a moderator has chosen to be the parent of the new topic).

If anything I have said is clear as mud (so not clear at all), let me know. I'm looking forward to hear all ideas!

Best - Ronald

[emanuele]

Good to see you here again   Tutto va bene?

I'm always around, just very hidden!
Yes, everything fine!
The only problem is that I'm throwing too many things on the plate... (see this one that I think it would be nice to code...not interested in using, though )

1. What happens when a message in the middle of a tree must be deleted. You will get orphans! There should be some sort of glue to fix such gaps...

Keeping the thread order is as easy as update the parent id while deleting a post.
The alternative would be to keep the message row as a place-holder and put a note "message removed" or something like that.

2. With tree view activated, members are no longer replying to a topic, but to a specific message. Or could there be 2 buttons: "Reply to this message" and "Reply to this Topic" (when using the last button, a reply would be generated to the very 1st message in the topic).

I would avoid a "reply to the topic" button, it would create confusion: if people are at the last message they are answering to the that last message of the branch (using also the "knowledge" they gained while reading the branch), if they want to reply to the "topic" it means they are replying to the first message. In a threaded view there is less space for the "topic".

3. When splitting a topic, it should be possible to split off all messages that are in the same part of the tree (starting from the message that a moderator has chosen to be the parent of the new topic).

Well...that would be a bit more tricky...unless...a bit more structured "parent id" is used:
tid = "in-topic" id (i.e. an id different from both id_msg and id_topic)
ptid = parent "in-topic" id

Code Select Expand


msg1 (ptid = 0 | tid = 1)
  |-msg2 (ptid = 1 | tid = 11)
  |-msg3 (ptid = 1 | tid = 12)
  |   |-msg4 (ptid = 12 | tid = 121)
  |   |   |-msg6 (ptid = 121 | tid = 1211)
  |   |-msg5 (ptid = 12 | tid = 122)
  |-msg7 (ptid = 1 | tid =13)

Hope the pattern is evident.
The if you want to split msg3 and all its children you can just select all those with tid starting with "12" (msg3, msg4, msg6, msg5).
That if we want to keep the internal SMF structure that asks to save the topic id in each message.
Problem is tid and ptid should be a string and not a number...don't know if SQL-side it makes a difference.

* emanuele hopes Suki will have time to code this, otherwise 2.1 will be out with less bugs!

[MrMike]

If someone wants to tackle this, I'll put up some initial funding.

Show me some basic, proof-of-concept code (a working or semi-working example) and I'll start off with $100 in your PayPal account. I know, it's not a lot, but if others would chip in then whoever does the mod would get some fair compensation for their work. And, as things progress on the code I'd be able to kick in some more money.

There are limits to what I could ultimately contribute, but I'm definitely willing to spend some money to help get things going. PM me if you want to take a whack at it. Or discuss it here and maybe agree on someone to be the lead on it.

[MrMike]

It's because just like Bill Gates, there are some coders who think they know what you want better than you do.

I think this is an unfair comparison.

1) Microsoft makes closed-source software. SMF is open-source. Huge difference. You can code whatever you like for SMF if you want, assuming you have the skills and time. There's nothing stopping you or anyone from implementing any feature you like. Conversely, try getting Microsoft to add a feature just for you. Let us know when that happens.

2) It's no work at all to request features, but much more work to code them and make them happen. I'm sure there are a billion mods that people would love to have. Unfortunately, the SMF team has limited manpower, time, and money. I don't blame them one bit for trying to decide which mods are "worthy" of the time and support to create and which ones aren't. Of course there will be disagreements in this area, it would be a miracle if there weren't.

Full disclosure: I've worked at Microsoft and I saw the same kind of arguments there about what should be implemented versus what shouldn't. I worked on the Dealerpoint team and Hotmail SLA and several others. It was always the same sh*t. One group would want feature "A" and another group wouldn't. It usually came down to time and money and who could scream the loudest (the actual utility of the feature was often a minor concern, believe it or not).

3) Even enormous companies like Microsoft have to decide which features they feel are worthwhile and which ones aren't. I am by no means a fan of Microsoft (I can't stand them, frankly) but I'm impartial enough to recognize that even they can't implement every friggin' feature in the universe.

4) If you're not happy with the way that SMF development is going, contribute something to help make it go your way: time, money, code, whatever. Or pick another platform to use, as you've done. Frankly I'm not into the whole Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn/GooglePlus thing...it's just not what I want to do. That's just me. If you want to do development there, more power to you.

[rbeuker]

Hi emanuele!

The alternative would be to keep the message row as a place-holder and put a note "message removed" or something like that.

Yes, that's a nice idea also

if they want to reply to the "topic" it means they are replying to the first message. In a threaded view there is less space for the "topic".

Oh yes, I understand and agree. It's important that people clearly see what message they're responding too.

Problem is tid and ptid should be a string and not a number...don't know if SQL-side it makes a difference.

That should not be much of a problem, you can always cast from/to string to numeric.

Good luck on working on 2.1! And then (when 2.1 has been finished) you will write this code for me?

Ciao,

Ronald

[SikLiFe]

now if it's anything like these couple sites,

just a ranndom browse of users profile, the inline comments, scroll to the bottom view thread comments.
http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=forums#/dqjnr8

or http://www.4chan.org, style, i'd be interested as well.