Change "Reply" to "Post" (automatic links below Talk messages)

"Reply" obviously confuses people, making them expect that it indicate who's being replied to automatically.

Tim, changing 'reply' to 'post' shaves off characters! ;-)

Agreed.

I'm not sure why people expect this, given that it never previously did that, but if it's causing confusion I agree it should be changed.

I do see it from the point of view that "Reply" and "Post" are two slightly different things, though. "Reply" means you can edit a response right there next to the message rather than having to scroll to the bottom and do it. To me, having "Post" there would seem a little weird. But I see the other argument as well.

To me, the better way to go is to have reply actually DO something, as has been suggested in another RSI.

5) reply does do something, it let's you reply to a comment without having to go all the way down to the end of the thread.

I prefer the word reply over post.

6> reply does do something, it let's you reply to a comment without having to go all the way down to the end of the thread.

Err, I believe that's exactly what I said in my post, isn't it?

I thought it was clear from context I meant do something more "reply"-ish.

If they wanted to add a post number or something without changing the Talk format, that would be nifty, sure. But I guess it comes down to what they want/can do. If nothing new is added, at least minimise confusion.

7) I do not know what you had originally, as you edited. Not to imply anything one way or another, but an indication that reply button including quoting in its operation would be nice.

I've seen that comment several times now, the indication that the reply button adds nothing, so I probably leapt onto that without further examination of the post.

9> I do not know what you had originally, as you edited.

FYI, I think I changed:

- To me, having "Post" there seems a little weird.

to

- To me, having "Post" there would seem a little weird.

No worries, though. Sometimes I've had to facepalm when I replied before reading the second of two paragraphs of a post, only to see that the second paragraph made it moot. ;)

I have to agree here. I'm used to the way Talk works, but when you hit "reply" in the middle of the thread, on a specific post, and it gives you a reply-box *right there*, it really does seem like you are replying *to that post*. And then to see that your reply doesn't indicate that in any way... it's confusing, even to me.

But it has always done that!

>12 justjim:

I believe that it was formerly titled "Post a message" wherever it was.

So, I think this is worth changing. I don't like:

1. Threading.
2. Automatic quotations.
3. Automatic back-reference insertion.

And I think this will keep coming up. So, basically, I see this as the best way to proceed.

>13 timspalding:. Quotations don't have to be automatic. They would be useful for people who want to do them, and who are probably going to copy/paste and quote anyway. I know people don't agree with me but I'm just sayin'.

Tim, what about inserting @ username?

13> I believe that it was formerly titled "Post a message" wherever it was.

I can confirm that from my pre-change screenshots.

> 15

I'd like to see that. I don't care about jumps back to the message in question so much as I'd like to see the number of the message and the username. I mean, you can always delete it easily if it turns out you just didn't want to scroll to the bottom.

Adding my voice to wanting a reference for replies. I'd prefer a link or auto-quote, but I get confused often enough in talk threads (especially ones where multiple topics start getting argued over) that I don't post as much as I might if I had an easier way to follow the thread of an argument.

Please, please don't just rename it back to "Post". There's so much possible usability that so many people seem to want that could hook off of the "reply".

This just reminds me of the checkmarks and collections. Many people wanted it, a handful didn't. People were crying out about how it would ruin the experience. They were added and I've seen nary a de-evolution nor our forums being invaded by people any more rude, ignorant or hostile than the folks already there. (Take that as you will).

I still don't see what's so horrible about adding a link when hitting reply in the center. The only argument I've somewhat seen is that you think your users will "get sloppy" or something. I already see plenty of people who use the convention without using any meaningful guides to context.

If you end up renaming it, at least leave the javascript call as it is so it'll be easy for Greasemonkey folks to override.

Didn't twitter start doing the @ because of user-based conventions? Didn't they think see the use of convention as an indicator of where even more functionality would be useful?

I'm not going to get into the whole debate again, but I absolutely agree with Tim's #13.

I'm typically at the bottom of the page when I post anyway, and my reply may be to the thread as a whole (as this is), or to several messages in the thread, so I wouldn't want auto-insertion of anything. I don't know that I've ever clicked Reply / Post a Message elsewhere, but if I did, it would be to have a specific message in a long thread right there for reference and copy/paste of relevant content. So auto-insertion of message # and user name might be a minor convenience, but not a feature I'd beg for. For people with different posting habits, I can see auto-insertion being an irritation. I really dislike having to undo what some programmer has decided would be "helpful". I'd say absolutely not to multithreading (too difficult to follow the flow of conversation), or to auto-insertion of message content (too much bloat). Re the title of this thread, I agree that "Reply" is misleading.

Okay, I'm going to reverse myself and give it a trial. @_Zoe_ you can blame @jbd1 for me being swayed.

So, I want the absolute minimal back-reference. I propose:

Reply to message X by @Y

The @ will be linked. The message will not.

Anyone?

I don't mind that, as long as there's no actual link. But can we have the edited info back separately from the original posting time too, if you're no longer worried about clutter?

I think you could probably leave out the "message X by" part.

Okay, how about if clicking the date gave you the original date?

22> I can live with that, even if it's not my favorite. Such is compromise.

Plus it'll make the greasemonkeying to link the X to the message easier. :D

>25 timspalding: That would be nice, thanks.

It will take a while to see whether I eventually start noticing that posts have been edited at all, but I'll appreciate the ability to check when I do notice.

25> Again, probably not my ideal, but I'd vote for that as a compromise, too. That data needs to be in there somewhere.

24>

I'd rather leave out "by @Y" than "X". In many, if not most threads there will be multiple posts per poster. "Message 24" is always unambiguous. "DaynaRT", even in this short thread, isn't.

>22 timspalding:
In which case my thanks to @jbd1.
I'd be happy with a # or > rather than "Reply to message" as long as I can identify the message.

29> Good point, though of course I'm biased because that's the way I liked it as well. I think it's just going to come down to personal preference on this, and on that score Tim's wins out. ;)

Hooray!

>22 timspalding,

I really don't see this as adding much more value than could be added quite quickly by hand once the 'Reply' link has been clicked.

Adding the linked username gives the replying user (and later readers of the thread) the ability to go to the original posters profile. Surely, in most thread discussions, the people who are holding the conversations know each other well enough that checking profiles is not required.

On the few occasions when it is required, it is simplicity itself to click on the username in the title bar of a post. This could be done on any of the posts that the user has originated, but is even more simplified if the automatic reply information links you to the post being replied to, since the username of the original poster is therefore immediately available.

==This next bit could, and probably will, go in the other appropriate thread but is relevant here also==

The more I see them used, the less I like the @ username concept. Everywhere I have seen it used (and I admit that this could just be the novelty of the feature) it could just as usefully be replaced with the username in question without the link to the user's profile.

==End slightly OT bit==

So, my counterproposal is exactly what I have used in the first line of this post. The most accepted symbol for "In reference to message #xx" (>) followed by the message number being referenced, a space and the username of the person who wrote that post with no link on the username. Then a comma and two line feeds.

In general use, I would have double-clicked the 'timspalding' and retyped 'Tim'.

Other users could modify the reply part as they see fit, even deleting it altogether.

>33 justjim: Like the usernames, I don't see this as adding much value, but it's relatively harmless.

I don't want the actual back-links, because that encourages people to write in a way requiring back-links. I don't want to jump around constantly while reading a thread.

I don't want to jump around constantly while reading a thread.

But you don't have to if you don't want to. If you can remember, or feel that it doesn't matter, what a referenced post is about you can just ignore the link.

My point is that if you can't remember what the referenced post is about, a link to it is a lot more useful than a link to the post author's profile.

If Tim wants to avoid small but accumulating database bloat then surely a link to the referenced post but not a link to the post author's profile is the way to go?

>35 justjim: Right, but I think that knowing readers can click the links will encourage people to write in a way that depends on them more. Why bother quoting the relevant sentence when you can more easily insert a back-link? Etc.

25,27,28: Re date created / date edited: There's more about this in the general talk changes thread, but Tim responded here so... No to clicking on the edit date to get the original date. There has to be a better way. This is basic simple information. Both dates should be visible at a glance.

22 etc: Re automatic insertion: If it's going to happen, then I'd think a minimum: message # and user name without any links. A link to the profile is silly. A link to the message could discourage quoting of relevant text and create a spaghetti experience of reading the thread.

36:
Except I already see people doing that. That's why I want links, because I find myself hitting control-f. I don't see your argument about how it will make it worse.

If I wasn't already having problems with it, it wouldn't have occurred to me to ask for it.

I notice it especially in a couple of occasions:

1) threads where people are posting a lot at about the same time.

2) when someone is behind a while and responds to a bunch of threads. They may be post 25 and I read from 1 to 24 three weeks ago. I hit jump to bottom to find they're referring to post 22 and I have no idea what it is, but it sounded interesting. At some point I probably read it, but in-between that was probably a disaster at work, a funeral, a dog training competition, guests coming over, and a trip out of town. (Rough summary of my last few weeks).

3) Wonkiness. Every once in a while I'll have a thread open, hit a reply, and then realize I was on a stale page I hadn't refreshed and my short number> I agree, refers to a message that was pages ago on the thread.

So you're worried about it getting worse and even more context being muddled. I understand that. I however already think it's a problem, and it seems from what other people have said on the threads, they agree. I don't see people right now who manage to quote well, even though there's nothing in the current system helping them, getting worse. However, I do see this helping the offenders (like me on many occasion) who just now do the convention of the 21>.

I myself like the idea and will start using it as I can. It's also made me realize how many times I'm in a hurry and type in the wrong number (ie 34> instead of 35> which is what I'm actually replying to.

>39 justjim: That last bit is a very good point. I often see people 'talking to themselves'!

I think we're not giving people enough credit here. Those who chose to quote before for clarity are unlikely to stop wanting to be clear, in my opinion - and those who didn't will be no change. Frankly, not very many people quote /as it is/. Most people just do a post reference number, or no reference at all. This is why I think a link, or at the very least an inserted reference number, is an improvement.

I really like inserting usernames because it helps contextualize the conversation. I often remember the point that a person is replying to, but not who made it.

Of course, I might be wrong. But so might the other side! I'd like to give it a whirl and see how it turns out in play. Until then, how link-backs affect the conversation is all conjecture.

The really frustrating thing here is that these are basically the two opposing sides:

For message # linked replies:
This will solve a real problem that I think everyone can admit does exist - that many times, especially in longer or active threads, people will post in response to whole messages where specific quoting isn't really appropriate. They do this by putting the number of the message they are responding to at the beginning of their post. Then you have to scroll up to figure out which thread they are responding two.

Against message # linked replies:
This might create a problem by encouraging users to be lazy and not quote when they otherwise used to.

What's so exasperating is that this suggestion that will solve a concrete, existing problem that makes the style of the LT forum much harder to use is pitted against an ephemeral opinion-based argument on what some people divine the future behavior will be of people they don't know.

This is especially frustrating when people use this style of argument who have been the same ones to have repeatedly called out such a style of argument in the past.

>41 brightcopy: I don't think the concrete problem is nearly as serious as you make it out to be. I counted the use of plain references in another thread; 90% of them referred to posts that were very recent. I use Talk all the time, and it's not hard at all.

There are arguments that lack of threading also makes Talk so much harder to use. It doesn't automatically follow that threading is desirable.

Ultimately, though, Tim will decide this one anyway; I don't think user input is going to make much difference here.

Sure it will. Tim's already changed his mind from 'no, not at all' to 'let's try something'.

In general, > 41 is exactly my opinion.

>43 Aerrin99: That was based on discussion with Jeremy, not on what users said here.

42> I don't think the concrete problem is nearly as serious as you make it out to be. I counted the use of plain references in another thread; 90% of them referred to posts that were very recent. I use Talk all the time, and it's not hard at all.

And others have pointed out the flaws in your analysis. Just because 90% of the time the message people are replying to is the one right above them says almost nothing about how much of a problem it is that 10% of the time you have to go searching back a page or more. Even worse when you're on a 200 message thread and message 197 refers to message 122. The 90% is an irrelevant statistic that is only used to coat an opinion-based reasoning in a veneer of objectivity.

There are arguments that lack of threading also makes Talk so much harder to use.

The fact that you would compare the two arguments is, again, really frustrating. Do you really not see that this is at least one order of magnitude different? Linking back to another message is something I can already do. I can write a greasemonkey script to do it on every post. However, I cannot change Talk from unthreaded to threaded (not that I'd want to). How can you compare those two?

Ultimately, though, Tim will decide this one anyway; I don't think user input is going to make much difference here.

That's always the case. Doesn't stop you from continuing to beat your drum very often either, does it? ;)

(Though I don't think I'd go so far as your statement, given that he's change from being totally against any of these suggestions to implementing the on in #22. Sorry to make you scroll back 20 message for that. Of course, I'm not sure if jbd1 swaying him counts as "user" input.)

Ya, I think it would be nice if there was a link on the message number back to the reply, especially for new members who seem to respond to early parts of a thread not realizing that their post will not be anywhere near it. I think it would be an excellent edition, I've thought it would be a good idea since I started using talk.

>45 brightcopy: So, what evidence do you bring? You're quick to say that my position is only based on opinion; what do you have besides your own opinion that the current system is "difficult to use"?

You think it's difficult. I think it's not. But for some reason I'm supposed to conclude that your opinion takes precedence, and that the change will obviously be beneficial?

RSI discussions are largely about opinion. We try to present relevant evidence that will support our opinions, but it's never going to be a scientific process.

I use Talk regularly. I don't find that it's awkward or that I need to do a lot of scrolling, so I don't think the proposed solution would add much. I tried to get a sense of why the scrolling wasn't a problem despite the frequency of plain number references; I'm now satisfied that I have a better understanding of the situation even if you reject the information as irrelevant.

For the threading comparison, I don't think the "order of magnitude" difference is relevant for the general argument. Some people perceive a problem where others don't; some people perceive a solution that others think might do more harm than good. Are you saying that LT should implement all minor changes that people request?

>47 _Zoe_:

She has the opinions of others in this thread saying the same thing.

>48 damsel58: Fair point. But Tim had also said he wanted to avoid back-linking, so there are opinions lined up on both sides.

But then why couldn't a (non-automatic) quoting mechanism be an option? It would avoid the use of links and also provide context for people (such as myself), too lazy to copy and paste from the thread I'm replying to. I could highlight the text I want to quote, hit reply, and it would automatically get blockquoted. Context, no links.

47/49> I really don't think I can have a logical argument with you on this one. If I said the sky was blue and you said "oh yeah, what kind of evidence do you have of that?", I'd just have to shake my head and walk away. Such is the case here. I think your judgment on the facts of the matter (that replies often happen much farther down a thread than the thing replied to, thus resulting in scrolling back to find the post) is clouded by your desire to not have a feature to address it (whether or not that feature is a good idea or really does address it).

*shakes head*
*walks away*

>51 brightcopy: I think it was your own lack of interest in reaching an understanding that prevented a logical argument. You were more concerned with saying I was wrong than with actually thinking about the issues I raised. Now that you've decided I'm fundamentally a dishonest person after I reacted very strongly to something you considered a non-issue, I'm afraid it won't be possible for us to have a logical argument again.

Shaking my head at both of you. It's lucky you both have to type your replies since you both put so many words into the other's mouth, you certainly wouldn't be able to actually talk.

>53 justjim: Heh, maybe. All I can say is that I was trying to make my point honestly with the arguments deemed irrelevant and frustrating.

bc, I think you're being too hard on Zoe here. Can't you just leave it at you see a problem with the current system and she doesn't. My opinion is that it isn't that much of a problem but occasionally someone would post a reply to a message way back and it would be a pain to page back all that way and then page all the way back again. Often if I couldn't figure out what they were talking about from just their post I'd ignore it rather than page all the way back. But as I said it only happens occasionally.

>54 _Zoe_: Thanks, Jeff.

I wonder whether that may be one of the key differences: I also sometimes ignore a post that doesn't make sense on its own; I prefer to read the thread continuously rather than jumping around, though I do sometimes go back and re-read large parts.

Even if I could easily jump around all the time to see specific earlier posts, I don't think I'd consider that an improvement. It would interrupt the reading experience rather than facilitating it. I'd rather take a completely different approach, maybe adding a Talk Tips section somewhere with suggestions on when it's useful to quote and how much, when it's useful to include the reference number of the post you're responding to, etc.

>56 _Zoe_: I can understand that preference. Mine is a different preference because often enough, I want to follow the flow of a particular argument instead of the conversation.

What I am not getting is how having the capability to jump to a specific post that someone else is responding to in order to see the flow of an argument (instead of wading through pictures and tangents) is so terrible that hampers the way you read. Just continue as you are and ignore the link.

I don't really care all that much. :-)

In order of preference:
* Don't automatically insert anything. Trouble with long and busy threads is more that they are long and busy than that people don't properly reference.
* Automatically insert message # and user name w/o link. Proceed with caution. See whether it is indeed both useful and not messy before complexifying.
* Automatically insert message # and user name w/ link to referenced message. I can imagine both usefulness and messiness. I think it's as legit to raise hypothetical problems as to claim solutions.

Yeah, proposed solutions seem to depend on perceived problems. I prefer to follow a thread from beginning to end, as a single conversation, and focus on statements / opinions that are independently coherent.

>57 damsel58: If everything else remained the same, it wouldn't change anything for me. My concern is just that it would become expected ("I don't need to make this clear, because they can easily jump back to see what I was talking about") and that it would encourage people to reply more to long-ago posts rather than sticking more or less to the flow of the conversation. It also seems like a stepping-stone to threaded conversations (despite brightcopy saying that that's a whole other order of magnitude); once LT is supporting the notion of responding to an individual post rather than contributing to the conversation as a whole, I can imagine that the requests to show just one branch of the conversation will increase, and I'm not sure on what grounds they could be refused. If it's no longer about adding to the conversation as a whole, why not allow people to see just the parts that they're interested in?

I know, this is all hypothetical, and maybe it would turn out differently. I actually suspect that the most likely outcome is that nothing would change, because people wouldn't use the new feature consistently or enough to make any difference. It wouldn't help, and it wouldn't hurt. But since I see the feature as being more harmful the more successful it is, I'd rather avoid it altogether.

What's really hard for me to get a sense of is precisely how helpful it would be. If a lot of people think it would hugely improve their Talk experience, then it would probably be worth the risk. Do you think it would help a lot, or just a bit? Do you think most people would use it, or just a few? Etc. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase this, but I don't remember seeing other requests for this, so it's hard for me to judge how serious the problem is. That's what I'd really like to understand.

@ 55

I think you're wrong about it only happening occasionally. It definitely happens all the time in hot topics.

@ 59

And why should there be encouragement one way or another in regards to what users should reply to? Users should be encouraged to reply to whatever message they want to and the fact that it is currently easier to reply to a new message and have your reply easily understood than to do the same for an earlier message certainly seems to provide all the evidence necessary for implementing some sort of message linking or quoting function.

>61 JGKC: It depends on what kind of Talk environment you want to have. Tim likes the idea of non-threaded Talk, where every thread is a continuous discussion (and I happen to agree with him on this one).

@ Zoe

Really? As brightcopy already told you, a message linking or quoting system is completely different than a threaded posts system. And the fact is that neither linking nor quoting is fundamentally linked to having threaded discussions.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you continuously avoid the facts that are presented and instead choose to throw in "arguments" that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

>63 JGKC: Look at your own words: And why should there be encouragement one way or another in regards to what users should reply to? Users should be encouraged to reply to whatever message they want to

Do you really not see the relevance for threaded forums? Why should Tim encourage people to participate in the discussion as a whole, rather than replying to whatever message they want?

It's really hard to take you seriously when you continuously avoid the facts that are presented and instead choose to throw in "arguments" that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Saying that something is so doesn't make it a fact. Look in the mirror; claims that support your position are facts, while claims to the contrary are irrelevant?

>59 _Zoe_:+
I don't agree with the notion that we shouldn't encourage people replying to earlier messages even if the thread has moved on. It's a message board - not an IM client. People with worthwhile comments aren't going to be on the board 24/7. I'd hate to lose their voice because of that.

Add me as vote to have an link added to the message number as an automated part of a reply. It seems like an elegant fix to an existing issue. It's not like we can't change back if there's some cultural shift that people feel is for the worse.

I think the comparison to threaded messages is overblown. Many boards successfully have threads in a continuous format like LT and are able to handle sometimes divergent strands of conversations in them (although they seems to usually have some tool to help with quoting a message - not something I'm eager to see here).

>65 lucien: I think it's still possible to address earlier points while maintaining a sense of the overall context of conversation. Even something like "Back to the earlier issue of so-and-so, I agree with the people who said....". That doesn't prevent anyone from being heard, but does fit with the overall flow of conversation rather than introducing a sudden break.

Fundamentally, I think LT should either support divergent strands of conversation, or not. If they decide that that is something worth facilitating, it doesn't really make sense to do it halfway.

Based on user preferences expressed here, my money is on LT eventually allowing an optional threaded view, despite Tim's cries that it will happen only over his dead body.

eventually allowing an optional threaded view

say what? I don't want threads though I'd like the links idea. We have a specific situation and threading has nothing to do with it.

But if we're already going to link the response to the preceding message, why not allow a convenient way to view that strand of conversation?

Because sometimes people want to respond to more than one item. This is not about excluding the rest of the conversation in its entirety. It's about responding to something in particular. Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive things.

How would optional threading prevent people from looking at the rest of the conversation as well? They could read the thread they were particularly interested in and then go back to the rest, or vice versa.

I think the issue of responding to more than one item is also not addressed with the current proposal. Presumably people could write multiple messages replying to various posts.

I'm not suggesting that the threading would be mandatory; it would still be possible to reply to the thread in general and look at all the posts in the order of posting. But if there's a chain of back-replies, it would be easier to follow if the thread could be filtered to show just that chain.

Zoë -- Though I share some of your concerns about backlinks, I don't see them as a slippery slope to nested threads (which I hate hate hate). I see backlinks as occasionally useful, but often gratuitous, adding to the busyness of already busy threads. Still, I see backlinks as a way to reference parts of a single conversation that is occurring in sequence, not as encouraging multiple separate conversations.

>71 qebo: I don't think they necessarily have to lead to nested threads, but I think the logic is the same in both cases. Arguing for the back-link, damsel58 said, for example, that she often wants to follow the flow of a particular argument rather than the whole conversation (#57). I can certainly understand that, but I think if that's the goal, then full threading--as an option--makes even more sense than just back-links.

Except it is not what I am asking for, nor is anyone else that I can see really. What I am asking for is a link. That's it, full stop, no slippery slope here, please stop taking the argument past what I am actually asking for. I want to be able to put replies in context AND follow the flow of the conversation.

>73 damsel58: I know it's not what you were asking for; what I'm saying is that I think it's an even more effective way to accomplish the underlying goal.

If it's desirable to jump backwards through replies, why shouldn't we also be able to see the string of replies going forwards without jumping?

I'll leave now, but I'm still confused about why back-links are good while threading is bad. Both are about making it easier to follow parts of the conversation.

72,74: There's a difference between temporary focus on a strand of conversation, and requesting a separate conference room.

Sure, but wouldn't threading make it much easier to focus temporarily on the strand in question?

ETA: Ack! I said I was leaving. Maybe this time it will work.

74,76: People typically have multiple goals.

Sure, but wouldn't threading make it much easier to focus temporarily on the strand in question?

No. I don't want to read a threaded conversation. I want to read a conversation. If, while reading the conversation, I come across a post that doesn't fully make sense to me, and I want a little bit more context, I would like to easily go back to the post they replied to.

I wouldn't want to go forwards "in a strand," only backwards in it. Threaded conversation is very good for going forwards in one particular strand but missing the conversation as a whole, or new posts that came after you went through one strand. That isn't what I want. A backlink to the post that was replied to makes it easy to go backwards in a strand, without missing the conversation as a whole.

78 > yes.

Not to mention adding a link is relatively simple especially once he is already putting in the message #, threading would be another whole talk rewrite...

@ Zoe

I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first half of 64. You're the one who was saying that users should be encouraged to stick to the flow and not respond to earlier messages.

As to your second point, really? Of course bringing up threading is irrelevant. Nobody was asking for it, and your bringing it up only confuses the issue (which I suspect is your goal).

80> Why do you feel you have to impugn people's motives? As I said before, but I can't find it on this thread, linking posts together is the basis of threaded conversations. With it you can follow separate threads within one conversation and without it it's much harder.

FYI: LT Auto Link Replies script for Greasemonkey

78> YES!

I often find it confusing to scroll up and down mutliple times in a thread either to respond to a specific comment myself, or to try to understand a reply from another user. I absolutely hate threaded conversations and would never ever want to see them here, but I would love an easy way to move backward through a thread to make sure I am following the conversation correctly.

I consider myself a non-power user and think there are many like me who read a lot of threads but don't always join the conversation because it just becomes too easy to lose the thread of it when you can't stay logged in and ready to respond to a comment at a moment's notice. Scrolling up and down to get the right numbers to reply to is a big pain and one of the reasons I sometimes just give up on what was likely a promising conversation.

Thanks, BC.

You're BC when I'm on the iPad, hope that's ok.

84> It's all good. I'm on the infernal device now, so no nifty auto-link! One thing I suggested over in the @ thread was that # or ## could act like the @ sign when followed by a number. But instead of linking to profiles it'd link to message numbers in a thread.

@ 81

I don't see anyone asking for posts to be linked together as in your reply would be shown right under the post that you are replying to but rather for posts to be linked together as in there would be a link that enable you to jump to the post that you are replying to.

86> That's just a display issue. Logically, linked is linked.

ETA: OK, the difference in display will cause a difference in usage, but brightcopy was taking it too far to say that the two things are completely unrelated.

ETA2: And bc probably didn't say completely unrelated but his comment was pretty far back and I don't have the time to look for it right now.