Talk about Talk, replies in particular

Tim and I just had a good discussion about tracking "reply" messages in Talk and we'd like to get some feedback before jaunting off happily to code away at a solution.

As it is now, there's no reference to the original message within a Reply message. Because of this there have been various methods for referencing to what message a particular member is referring: some people number with >>23 brightcopy:, others put the original in bold with their reply underneath, others just put the original message number like 23:, while others reference the original message's creator by name.

We have a couple of solutions on the table but welcome others (within reason):
1) Include a line at the top of every message that is a reply to another message. Something like "This is a reply to message 42" with the number being a link to jump up to message 42. This would be done automatically by the system. The downside is that it can only reference the single message that you replied to, so if you're replying to multiple messages within your message it won't have a link to all of them, just that one.

2) Implement a markup strategy that lets members add something like >>23 brightcopy: to reference a message number within the topic. The upside is that you can reference multiple messages within a single reply. The downside is that it's the onus of the replier to put this "metadata" in the post. If they don't then there's no referential information for the reply for other readers, much like now.

We welcome your thoughts.

I'd like something like >>23 brightcopy: or >23 brightcopy:. Basically, any time it sees a > on its own, followed by numbers, it would make it a link to that message. Thus, it would work like the @ sign, which links to users, or the brackets, for authors and works.

The advantage of this would be that it's simple and lightweight. Members don't need to change how they write posts. >NUMBER is already a common convention, and it can be combined with user names, bolding and so forth without a problem. You can do it or not do it, and you can reference multiple messages easily.

What do you think?

>2 timspalding:

I agree.

>2 timspalding:
I would find that useful. The possible drawbacks I see are (1) it's another bit of non-standard syntax that many infrequent users would never discover, (2) the risk that it inadvertently messes up when combined with HTML markup, and (3) that > is buried two clicks away on the iPad keyboard

Why not do both? The first is convenient when you are replying to a single message and the system knows what message that is by which Reply link you clicked on. The second is more manual but it is pretty simple to use when you want to reply to multiple messages.

Is a combination possible? I'm a member of a community that does both. Every post has the post it's a reply to in it, which makes backtracking through conversations much easier. We can also use markup to denote particular posts or threads. This allows us to send each other all over the forum from a single post.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/embyr/12807942735/

I'm not suggesting we need a header that large (I think you could put the "reply to" link in the current header without any issues, or just put it at the bottom with the "reply" and "more" links). The "Post #1" link in the header goes back to the post that this was a reply to. I was hovering over the post number (13) in the upper right corner, which gave the post ID for that particular post, to easily link to it. In the 4th paragraph, the red words, "Post", "Topic" and "Topic" are links to either a particular post, or the first post in a particular topic. We aren't allowed to use any fancy markup in the forum, so we can't change the name of the links or anything, but the combination does work well for us there. Not in this post, but in others, we actually work the words in the links into the sentences.

#1 by @conceptDawg>
I've been using brightcopy's GM script that creates the above mark-up (#1 by conceptDawg>) when clicking reply. I was very glad he made it because I had been writing similar HTML by hand each time, but it was a pain to grab the hash and stuff. I'm not tied to brightcopy's style or even the inclusion of the username.

Of the examples suggested here, I prefer >>23 brightcopy: to >23 brightcopy: because it's different enough from HTML to not worry about mix-ups, and just feels generally more distinct. I sometimes see >23 brightcopy:, other times see 23>, other times see spaces inbetween, and used to go back and forth between all of them. I think the order and the space-or-not question would be my biggest hurdle to remembering the shortcut.

I think it would be easier to learn if, like with brightcopy's script, the shortcut got dumped into the textarea after clicking "Reply". That should also help the two-clicks-away problem.

Good point about the auto-inclusion of the shortcut at edit time. I didn't mention that but it is important.

Yeah, I'm against auto-inclusion. It's fussy. LT's talk system's main virtue is its simplicity.

I've seen that I can live with the changes that you make to LibraryThing. If you implement something like one of these you should straighten out the numbering failures that arise.

Robert

>2 by @timspalding, Yes, do this!

I would like to see at least the message number included automatically when using the reply link.

>1 conceptDawg: Option one might increase the number of posts I write, since I'm currently in the habit of responding to multiple posts in a single reply. This would make me feel obligated to reply to each one separately. I'm a little leery of that, because I might be responding to something without reading the rest of the conversation that has since occurred, and my response might be out of date or irrelevant at that point. (For this reason I rarely use the actual "reply" link unless I'm at the end of the thread.)

Option 2 is more what I do now, so the automatic link to each referenced post would be nice, but I'm still probably going to take the trouble to quote the specific part I'm responding to.

I'd rather not have anything added automatically. If the text that we choose to insert ourselves is converted into a link, that's fine. But so many forums just turn into messes of auto-quoting and other junk. Members are capable of thinking for themselves about when a reference to an earlier post is needed.

I see even brightcopy's script as generating pointless noise. There's no reason to have a link to someone's profile every time I respond to their post.

So basically, this is a vote for #2, as the most minimal option that's been presented.

I like option #2 better as well. Simple is better.

>14 _Zoe_: It's about the adding of their name, in a clearly visible manner, rather than about a link to their profile. If someone responded to something 35 posts up, who's going to remember what it was? But if the name is included, then it's more likely to make someone (including the person who's being replied to) go "oh yeah, that comment."

I typically do this:

1: tracking "reply" messages in Talk
My comment.

I never use Reply at the end of a post. I always use the field at the bottom of the page. I often reply to multiple posts at once. If LT had a system, I’d change my habits accordingly. Automatically including the name of the poster would be useful; I do this sometimes, but often don’t bother. The number is more useful than the snippet of text; without a number, it’s necessary to search to figure out which post is referred to (Tim, take note). I don't know that I’d use a link to the original post, too easy to lose my place, but it wouldn’t hurt. A markup that took “>>1 conceptDawg:” and expanded it to “>>1 conceptDawg: (conceptDawg): <i></i>”, with or without a link to the original post, would be nice. Then I could copy and paste the relevant snippet.

>16 .Monkey.: And yet the link is there, for no purpose. This is where thinking comes in. If I'm responding to your message just a couple before mine, I don't think it's necessary to include a name. If I'm referring to something 35 posts up, I think it's necessary to include additional context, like a quote, or something like "As for Tim's point about x in #3...."

Deliberate thought makes for better conversations than automated responses.

16>

If it really was 35 posts up, I might decide to include the name, but if it's two posts as in this case? Including your username is just useless noise at best, rude "HEY YOU I'M TALKING TO YOU" at worst.

Besides, a quick search for the message number will provide any needed context trivially.

ETA: Crossposted, nearly verbatim, with _Zoe_.

>1 conceptDawg: Option one might increase the number of posts I write, since I'm currently in the habit of responding to multiple posts in a single reply. This would make me feel obligated to reply to each one separately. I'm a little leery of that…

So am I. I find it pretty irritating when one user posts three times in a row. Even if the sum is as long as one post would be, it's irritating. Besides, each post has a certain amount of "packaging" around it, bulking it up.

but I'm still probably going to take the trouble to quote the specific part I'm responding to

Right. I think that's a good idea, and the sort of thing that simply CAN'T live in code. There are systems out there that automatically quote the WHOLE post you're responding to. That gets so ugly so fast.

I'd rather not have anything added automatically. If the text that we choose to insert ourselves is converted into a link, that's fine. But so many forums just turn into messes of auto-quoting and other junk. Members are capable of thinking for themselves about when a reference to an earlier post is needed.

I agree. I suppose I'm not TOO put off by a mere >X, but anything more goes where you're talking about.

I like option #2 better as well. Simple is better.

Amen, sister.

It's about the adding of their name, in a clearly visible manner, rather than about a link to their profile. If someone responded to something 35 posts up, who's going to remember what it was? But if the name is included, then it's more likely to make someone (including the person who's being replied to) go "oh yeah, that comment."

Okay then. How about if you did >X it changed that to >X (@Conceptdawg)?

Damn, I think that's a pretty awesome idea.

A markup that took “>>1 conceptDawg:” and expanded it to “>>1 conceptDawg: (conceptDawg): ”, with or without a link to the original post, would be nice. Then I could copy and paste the relevant snippet.

And apparently qebo thought of it immediately after that. Great minds think alike?

Anyway, I'm very very into this idea. I think it's

1. Simple.
2. Light-weight.
3. Optional.
4. Functional.
5. Easy to implement.
6. Would increase post-level links and member-to-member engagement.

Including your username is just useless noise at best, rude "HEY YOU I'M TALKING TO YOU" at worst.

Disagree. I often remember "Zoe said X." I rarely know "Oh, post 23 was the one where Zoe said X."

#1 by @conceptDawg> The downside is that it's the onus of the replier to put this "metadata" in the post.

Yes, but you could prime it so that clicking Reply on message 23 will start the new reply message out with ">23 brightcopy:". This at least gives users a hint as to the "standard" way of doing it and is also just plain helpful. It also clues them in to adding it themselves if they are replying to a second post within the same text, IMO.

#2 by @timspalding> Thus, it would work like the @ sign, which links to users

This makes me a little antsy, as you never did finish fixing the bugs in that feature in the over two years since you introduced it. Heck, it munges LT staff EMAIL ADDRESSES:

tim@librarything.com

And then there's this bug from a few months back:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/162380

If you introduce this feature, please don't move on to the next shiny object until the reported bugs are fixed. :P

---

Now, as to how this looks in the message that you save, I'd like for the >23 brightcopy: to expand into something in message similiar to what you see up there in my auto-generated reference. I REALLY like both addressing things to a specific person's name (so helpful in a long thread), but more than that I wish other people would address it to MY name so I could more easily see something that's a reply to me.

---

On another topic, can you do some db-fu and see what the most common format really is? My feeling was that it was 23> rather than >23 brightcopy:. I think I also did a random sampling when I was creating my auto-link script but I'm sure my sample size was very low.

Disagree. I often remember "Zoe said X." I rarely know "Oh, post 23 was the one where Zoe said X."

Agreed.

My feeling was that it was 23> rather than >23 brightcopy:

Really? I don't feel like I see that often at all

#9 by @timspalding> Yeah, I'm against auto-inclusion. It's fussy. LT's talk system's main virtue is its simplicity.

Disagree completely. It's what most people would want the system to do. I've struggled through years of you NEVER putting post numbers in your replies, only grabbing some line from a post here and there and bolding it, leaving everyone to hunt back and figure out who you are replying to. You should only get half a vote on this issue. ;)

23: I've struggled through years of you NEVER putting post numbers in your replies
Yes. Thus my "(Tim, take note)" of post 17.

#14 by @_Zoe_> I see even brightcopy's script as generating pointless noise. There's no reason to have a link to someone's profile every time I respond to their post.

Considering that I'd be putting the username anyway, a link doesn't take up a single character more. And often it is useful to click the link to go to the profile. But mainly I used the @ auto-linking because I kept thinking Tim would eventually hook more code onto the @ feature so you could see all the places where people mention you using it.

>23 brightcopy:, 24 Heh. I can back that up, Tim. :)

Yay! I'm happy to see this as a possibility.

>20 timspalding: Especially agree with Tim on the very last point. I tend to remember usernames attached to threads, rather than the number of the post.

Can we just get off the subject of auto-quoting for a moment? I don't think anybody has used it yet a lot of virtual ink keeps being spilled on it. Nobody's arguing with you about it. X)

On the other hand, what WOULD be a cool feature is if you link to a post with this auto-linkage thing, it could provide you with a way to click and expand that other post RIGHT THERE rather than scrolling back up in the thread and then having to go back down. This would avoid the auto-quoting resulting in a bunch of text being added to every message, while at the same time giving you the ability to see the full text of a post without jumping around.

20>

Way to quote a single sentence out of context there, Tim. This was referring specifically to the case where the post being responded to was one or two posts up. If you're reading post 25 and don't remember that post 23 is where Zoe said X, then seeing her name isn't going to help much.

21>

And then there's this bug from a few months back:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/162380


Thanks for bumping that, I'd completely forgotten about it. And after I did such careful testing of what the exact scenario to produce the but was, too.

#29 by @lorax> And since you didn't quote which part you were referring to and Tim never quotes either message numbers or includes the person he is replying to, this was a fun conversation to parse.

Can add my request for building in brightcopy's greasemonky script (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/103613). The astute writer can easily add references to multiple messages if they want. Markup support would be nice too, so I guess I'd like a combination of options 1 and 2 from the OP. Automatically add a reference, using special easy to use markup.

With the recent modifications to reply behaviour from https://www.librarything.com/topic/170768#4569686 having a link back to the message you replied to is really handy. You click the new "bottom of the topic" link to see your reply, then click the back link to continue reading where you left off.

>>14 _Zoe_: (_Zoe_):
Sorry, didn't realize I was bugging people with my use of the script. :-) I've edited the script to remove the profile link. I still like having the name there (even tried to make it gray for you, but Talk strips that out :-)). As for how many posts down before it seems appropriate, well, there have been plenty of times when I think I'm the next reply but there were really 5 faster typers before me!

>>9 timspalding: (timspalding):
As for the opposition to the auto-inclusion, maybe I'm misunderstanding the opposition, but I don't see how it harms things to auto-include >>23 brightcopy: if you click reply to message 23. 1) It would teach how to do the shortcut, 2) if you don't want it that time, it's easy to delete, 3) if you don't want it all ever, you can post from the bottom instead of a reply.

#33 by @omargosh> As for the opposition to the auto-inclusion, maybe I'm misunderstanding the opposition, but I don't see how it harms things to auto-include

I'm wondering if it's because even though he thinks this is a good idea, he doesn't plan to ever use it. Is that your line of thinking, Tim? Or would this feature get you to include post #s? Because if it's the former, then auto-including would just put something in there he'd always have to erase.

Of course, here's where we get into the dreaded USER OPTIONS conversation...

>>34 brightcopy: (brightcopy):
He wouldn't have to erase it if he just posted from "Add a message" at the bottom, which is what I assume he does anyway. As for your last sentence, remove it immediately before Tim can see!! :-p

Another idea, for those who don't like the username included, maybe the link on the number could include a tooltip when mouseover to show who posted at that message? Just an error-prone idea I'm throwing out there. Would have done a simple implementation myself, but Talk apparently strips the title attribute from user-entered HTML.

34>

I wouldn't have any problem with an auto-included username if it were editable. I was envisioning something that happened under the hood and was not removable.

I'm wondering if it's because even though he thinks this is a good idea, he doesn't plan to ever use it. Is that your line of thinking, Tim? Or would this feature get you to include post #s? Because if it's the former, then auto-including would just put something in there he'd always have to erase.

I dunno. It's just cluttery and disrespectful of user choice. It's giving me a bowl of chowder and sprinkling pepper in it before I can stop you. And it's fussy. Clearly we need such things when the conversation gets long. But a lot of topics are one post long. When you reply, you reply. You don't need people bringing the full weight of such a system to bear in a pleasant and short chat between friends.

Of course, here's where we get into the dreaded USER OPTIONS conversation...

Yeah, get behind me!

#37 by @timspalding> My favorite thing about this post is how it pivots from deriding a feature for being "disrespectful of user choice" right to mocking the idea of user choices. ;)

37: It's just cluttery and disrespectful of user choice. ... And it's fussy.

I’m now thoroughly confused. The proposal is for bypassable auto-frills? What (and whose) problem is being solved?

I predict it'll wind up being another half-baked spottily used feature - kind of like the @ signs for usernames - if it's not auto-included. At that point, I'd really wonder why even bother. Spend the coding time on making the mythic Add Books redo happen a day sooner.

It might, at that. I think these conversations could be useful, whether or not anything is explicitly decided or adopted from it by LT. And hopefully, actually are useful. In the end, whether I like the choices made, like you (I think) I'd prefer a simple and rock-solid feature. Even if it's one I won't use, I can admire the solidity and elegance of such an eventuality.

37> Clearly we need such things when the conversation gets long. But a lot of topics are one post long.

But for those short topics people will most likely just be typing their message into the box at the bottom and clicking Post message, bypassing the Reply button completely.

I don't think I've ever used reply in the 7+ years I've been on LT. I always use the box at the bottom often with multiple replies. I would love to use >># and have it come up with the post number and person's name so I wouldn't have to do it manually anymore. If it didn't have both the post number and person's name, I wouldn't use it. I always use both when I reply. I have busy threads and it's too confusing otherwise.

I rarely use reply because, as Morphy says, many threads are long and messy and if I use reply I might end up having several replies. I usually wait until I've read everything and then go back to see if I need to reply to a specific message or many. I might then use the message numbers or I might just add a general message to the whole group if I think it will be understood as such. There's rarely been a problem with LTers not understanding ;)

Maybe the >> thing would be helpful by adding the names as well. I don't feel I need it, but I can see where it would be nice. Isn't it going to add a lot of characters to the site (whatever you call things(?)) or does that matter? Some of these groups are very long.

Here's a pie-in-the-sky idea:

You scan through the new messages in a 50 message topic and on message 23 you click Reply. It puts in >23 brightcopy: (Morphidae) and you start typing away. Then you scroll down some more to message 35. You click Reply and it scoots the message composition that was loitering about message 23 down to right below message 35 and (preserving the text already in there) it inserts a new line and >35 omargosh: (timspalding) on it, with your cursor right after that ready to type.

You keep doing that until you are done and you click Post. Additionally, this edit is kept linked to the "Add a message" edit box at the very bottom of the topic, so if you get to the bottom you can just type some more in that box and click Post, rather than scrolling back up to where the edit box is currently hanging about.

That sounds pretty good to me!

#45> I have no idea of the technical complexity, but that sounds just about perfect for my user experience.

>45 brightcopy: That'd be fun, but it's just an automated version of what I already do with cut & paste, lol.

#47 by @rosalita> I'd say it's not THAT complex, just a little time consuming to code and test. I could code it myself with a greasemonkey addon. So there's no "how the heck would I even DO that?" problems for their developers. Just taking the time to making it all work properly.

But there are many times/members where you might want to reply separately to posts and NOT have it do that sort of auto-glomming. What's the solution then? Remember to hit submit before you try to reply to a second message? It all seems too fiddly to me.

But you'd hit "post" then, no?

#49> And in fact, I use the multi-post feature in your GM script all the time.

#50> Like now. :-) I would think it would be pretty simple to hit Post on one reply if you truly want another to be a separate message. For me, that would come up much less often than wanting to reply to multiple messages together.

Life is fiddly. No matter how you implement any feature, it will never cover 100% of the use cases.

>45 brightcopy: this.

I've got something. I'd push it live, but I just heard the wife and kid drive up. Nothing like not pushing code and then leaving…

28> On the other hand, what WOULD be a cool feature is if you link to a post with this auto-linkage thing, it could provide you with a way to click and expand that other post RIGHT THERE rather than scrolling back up in the thread and then having to go back down.

The developer of the site I mentioned in post 6 has been messing around with AJAX recently. What he wants to do now is make it so when you click a post-link in a post, it pops up the message right there in a mini-box which we can move around our browser, allowing us to see the old post and the new post together. I think real life caught his time before he got it working enough to push it out to the site, but it's definitely something he wants to do.

I like the idea of the markup link, but PLEASE make it >># (even though I usually use #>), not just >#. And while you're at it, make the @ links @@ instead. It's so annoying with email addresses and the like - and I bet there are half a dozen standard uses that would suddenly try to turn into post links if the markup uses a single >.

All the other magic stuff - auto-inclusion, multiple posts, linked post popping up, etc - would be nice if they happened, but aren't at all necessary. There's a lot of Talk special markup (from touchstones on); this would be useful, and not all that hard to learn (probably less hard than touchstones!).

>2 timspalding: Well, I just found out about this new function now as I was replying to someone, and whatever the coding is like now, I'm loving it! Easy enough when you click on the link to see the original message to just do a return to "previous page" to return you to the place you were in the thread to begin with.

Super!

Now... we're just steps away from having the person the message is being addressed to being notified... as I'd suggested some time back. Too much resistance to the idea made me drop the subject then. I won't argue for it. Just suggest it again in a quiet way. ;-)

Here are some screenshots.

1. Typing a message



2. The Result



3. A more detailed example

>59 timspalding: Am I missing something? I don't see any difference between examples 2 and 3.

eta: ah! I see now. Posted that too quickly!

eta: However, I'm noticing that it's now interfering with the html, as I tried to do a strike and it doesn't work now.

eta: trying to see if I can do a s-t-r-i-k-e now.

eta: nope!

eta: !

No. I screwed up. Fixed :)

>59 timspalding:
Anything magic to get the linked "post 4" in the screenshot, or is that just plain ol' HTML?

>61 timspalding: see my numerous etas above

5 strike
Seems to be playing decent w/ HTML for me.

What's the problem with strike?

I am an elephant a man. Seems good to me.

>61 timspalding: I think you need a simpler discussion of how to get from there to here (so to speak). I'm trying a guess.

{editing}
Interesting.

So, a reply to someone goes like this.

- click the reply button
- type the ">" and the number of the reply
- the name is filled in magically

Anything magic to get the linked "post 4" in the screenshot, or is that just plain ol' HTML?

That was. But you can do inline message referencing. For example, I can say that the quote above comes from >62 omargosh:.

Pity that deletions don't actually delete the message, but I suppose for the sake of continuity, something has to remain.

>66 Lyndatrue: I really do like having the inline link magic, though. It permits others to go back to the post referred to quickly, rather than scrolling back.

>66 Lyndatrue:

Right. All you need is > and a number. But it needs to be on it's own >66X doesn't work.

Testing >100 brightcopy:. Ah. That breaks. Fixing.

>65 timspalding: what?

Huh! Not sure what happened there, because it wasn't working before. Things are going funny on the site tonight though, I notice, because sometimes some pages are reverting back to the old site design.

eta: when I was trying to type the 'strike' html code, it kept adding extra pointy brackets, though I've no idea why. Even now, as I try to type this message just typing the 's' word adds brackets, though I'm not sure now if I have that as a keyboard shortcut...

>68 Lyndatrue: You still need a primer for this. It's not intuitive, initially. Maybe a quick blog post? It seems very useful.

Why, when I typed "68" did it use my name instead of @timspalding?

Ugh. The numbering was off, somehow, until I refreshed the page.

I should have typed >69 timspalding: instead.

>70 Smiler69:

Yeah. See https://www.librarything.com/topic/170926#4571782 . Sorry. @ConceptDawg failed to read my mind.

>71 Lyndatrue: You still need a primer for this. It's not intuitive, initially. Maybe a quick blog post? It seems very useful.

Yeah. It'll get it. As it is, it doesn't even have a "New features" post. It's late. I'm tired… :)

I'm still on the fence about auto-adding it in when you reply. That's the big issue to decide tomorrow, before we announce it formally.

Ugh. The numbering was off, somehow, until I refreshed the page.

Ugh indeed. We need to solve that problem, which has bedeviled us. It's gotten worse now, since it's more important.

Oh, blech.

I like the link/quote thing, but was there ever an argument for having the carat before the number? I've always found that incredibly confusing. It reminds me of email forwards where you have > "quoted text", so I keep thinking that the post number reference and person's name are quoted text.

It's also the case on Ravelry, which I've been using a lot lately, that > auto-inserts a blockquote. Actually, I think the Rav method of replies is fabulous. When you click on "reply" to a specific post, yours includes a header "In response to ## by so-and-so" that you can click on and expand the original so you don't have to scroll.

Anyway, I guess we're stuck with what Tim's got here, though I do prefer brightcopy's version immensely, aesthetically at least. I don't care where the name link goes or if it even exists. But the carat following ## by so-and-so sets it off and doesn't make it blend into the next text (which may or may not be a quote...)

>73 keristars: I like the link/quote thing, but was there ever an argument for having the carat before the number?

People use it more. Back-references will be added to more old threads. More people will find new functionality on what they already do.

>72 timspalding: I'm still on the fence about auto-adding it in when you reply. That's the big issue to decide tomorrow, before we announce it formally.

I'd like to see it added in for the reply button. It would be very nice. It would also differentiate between "reply" and a simple post.

I'm tired, and I'm on west coast time, so it's clearly past your bedtime...

>72 timspalding: Tee hee! Curiouser and curiouser. The bars are blue now! As I said on that other thread you linked to, I was starting to think that one glass of wine I had this evening has me seeing things!

73> I like the link/quote thing, but was there ever an argument for having the carat before the number? I've always found that incredibly confusing.

I tried to convince TPTB to run a little query to see what format is used the most. Either they did and kept mum about it, or it got ignored. Seems a little weird to have ignored what the breakdown is on how people have been doing it for years and years, potentially asking a lot to switch.

>76 Smiler69: Yeah the blue thing is covered in another bug collector thread. They're on it.

>73 keristars: I always use it (the carat? didn't know it was called that) now, and started doing so about a year ago when I saw many other LTers doing it on a couple of different groups. Now all my old threads have this new feature, which is really cool. It's just a little habit to get used to, if you want to add this functionality to your comments.

>77 brightcopy:

Not an easy run. But let's specify it. What patterns do you want data on?

Also, why not allow both?

&gt;55
I have to type &amp;gt;55 to display the above. &gt;55 by itself does the linking too, which is kinda odd, but I shouldn't need the plain-text case often, or I can probably just put in a space in most cases. Ok, looks like I can do &#62;55 to get:
>55 timspalding:
ETA 1: This isn't me hinting at a request for further changes. Just documenting. I'll live with the &#62; escaping solution.

Otherwise lookin' good. I'll probably keep around brightcopy's script just to throw in the ># part in replies anyway (which is helpful when replying to tall messages).
ETA 2: Oh, I see it's still on the table. Cool.

Hey, that makes life DIFFICULT. I can't figure out how to get the rest of what I'm typing...

"^" carat
">" greater than, or angle bracket (sometimes called "closing angle bracket")
"(other angle bracket)" less than, or angle bracket

Sorry, pedantic is my middle name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caret

Now I'm going to vanish for the evening, before I get into more trouble.

(apparently LT insists on interpreting the other angle bracket, and eats the rest of the paragraph... BOOO)

^([^A-Za-z ]{,6})\s

s/\d+/x/g

?

ETA: Damn Talk parser still eats non-entity backslashes. *grumble*

I think I need to get to bed. This is all looking like Chinese (which I don't speak or read) to me.

The > is in HTML entities because this is done after all HTML issues are processed and resolved.

I still find all the extra blue more distracting than beneficial, but I guess I'll get used to it.

Didn't BC's stuff make more blue?

82> Thanks for the pedantic correction. I was thinking that the little angles have a particular name when used outside the greater/less than context, and the only thing I could think of was "carat" (and apparently couldn't even spell it properly!).

87> Maybe brightcopy's script made more blue text, but not all linked up together. Just scroll up and you can see folks using it and check the difference. ;) And the little arrow being after the links set them off from the rest of the post.

I think you could make the > black and it might even give it slightly more contextual information. Dunno. Hard to say until you see it. Now we dance on Sprockets.......

>88 (conceptDawg)
or
>88 (conceptDawg)
or
>88 (conceptDawg)
or
❯ 88 (conceptDawg)
vs
>88 keristars:

I'm not sure the 4th one will render the correct ❯ entity on older browsers (IE7, we're looking at you), though I like it better than the > sign. I think the 4th one is probably my favorite one. Meh.

We could do

>88 (ConceptDawg)

Just testing bold on the number here.
❯ 88 (conceptDawg)

Easier hit target, but probably too hard on the eyes.

Aaannnd of course IE7 balks at the unicode angle bracket. Ah well, it was good while it lasted. 3 posts.

http://www.librarything.com/tag/%3E12

>12 SylviaC:" rel="nofollow" target="_top">http://www.librarything.com/tag/>12 SylviaC:

http://www.librarything.com/tag/snuppysnup 62;12

>12 SylviaC:" rel="nofollow" target="_top">http://www.librarything.com/tag/>12 SylviaC:

http://www.librarything.com/tag/&gt;12

http://www.librarything.com/tag/&#62;12

>12 SylviaC:

Sorry for the ugliness. Trying to break things with silly unlikely cases. No idea where snuppysnup is coming from, hehe. Probably the only salient thing is the name repetition if you do the same reference more than once.

91> I think that does look better - putting the parentheses outside the link helps break it up a bit.

Not going to convince me about the placement of the arrow, though, and it will likely take me a long time to convert, if I ever do. ;) The forward/reply-email-quote convention has had far too long to take root for me. I mean, it's been 18 years that I've been using email that does that?

>80 timspalding: I'd love it if you'd allow both - but again, the cases where a link _isn't_ meant and happens anyway will get more numerous.

I've consistently used #> since...well, since I started using references at all - probably 6-7 years, shortly after I started in Talk.

And I repeat from >57 jjmcgaffey: - PLEASE make it >># (and #>>) rather than using the single greater than. It's so much less likely to mess up things that aren't actually links...

Hmmm. >>57 jjmcgaffey: - oh, that's funny! All I typed was >>#.

ETA Hey! The preview didn't have the double name on the first reference to my post, only on the second one. Hmmm again.

>80 timspalding:

Ah, I see. That's what omargosh was getting at. One name reference for every link within a post - so SylviaC showed up 5 times on each of 5 links to her post. Two links to 57 got my name twice on both links; two links to 80 got Tim showing twice on both.

Well, I've decided I like the change, and I like the inclusion of poster names in the link, and I even like the "blue". I've also easily adapted from a ># (which I've always used, no idea why) to a >>#.

One of the reasons I like the names showing up as part of the post being replied to is that reinforces to me that I'm talking to real people. No doubt if one of those names is someone that tends to piss people off, others will read whatever I quoted in the worst possible light. But I appreciate the reminder that the conversation is happening between people, not anonymous faceless posters.

>87 timspalding: Possibly, but I think there were just fewer people using BC's script. Now it's in pretty much every message. Oh well.

Well, I've decided I like the change, and I like the inclusion of poster names in the link, and I even like the "blue". I've also easily adapted from a ># (which I've always used, no idea why) to a >>#.

Do you mean the reverse? Which one are you arguing for?

showing up as part of the post being replied to is that reinforces to me that I'm talking to real people ... But I appreciate the reminder that the conversation is happening between people, not anonymous faceless posters.

I agree.

>>98 timspalding: Do you mean the reverse? Which one are you arguing for?

Oh I'm not arguing for either. Unlike many people I'm not picky. I don't get too hung up on UI cosmetics. As long as I know what to do, I'll do it. I've always used ">#" in the past but started using ">>#" today.

ETA...whoops maybe things have changed, and it's now ">#" Okay. I'm good with that.

#87 by @timspalding>
>87 timspalding:

Didn't BC's stuff make more blue?

Nope.

>99 southernbooklady: I think you're getting confused between what some were requesting (that it be double so as not to confuse HTML usage and whatever), and what was actually implemented.

My preference would be:

#100>

If the name had to be included, it'd be:

#100 (brightcopy)>

and if the link to the user had to be included it'd be:

#100 (brightcopy)>

I don't know if it's worth arguing in favour of the current direction of the arrow, but since there's discussion of the other direction, I'll just chime in and say that I like >#.

I see the arrow as indicating that my response is directed at a particular message. If it went the other way, it would suggest that my response was derived from the previous message, which isn't quite the right nuance.

Hmm, you point out a different use I hadn't thought through yet.

There's:

1.
#100> quote from the message goes here

My reply goes here

and:

2.
>#100

My reply goes here

1 follows quotation convention from e-mail and other places.
2 I feel follows referencing on LT-Talk more.

>104 JerryMmm: That's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess I would probably use a colon in the first case, or maybe just italics to indicate the quote.

>104 JerryMmm:: Hmm, you point out a different use I hadn't thought through yet.

My response goes here.

or

>104 JerryMmm: Hmm, you point out a different use I hadn't thought through yet.

My response goes here.

With the idea that the response is directed at your post, namely at the particular quoted statement.

ETA: Except ideally without the name repeating multiple times....

that (name) (name) (name) really need to be fixed before we can continue

So? Now I'm confused. I've seen @conceptDawg in another thread type >92 conceptDawg: and yet I've also seen (I think) 92> (which makes me confused). Partly I'm typing this just to see the behavior.

Have we decided on a format yet?

>92 conceptDawg: While I'm thinking about it, unicode is always bad. Seven bit ASCII should be enough for anyone.

:-) for the humor impaired.

I think the reason I prefer

100>

to > 100

is twofold; first, I view the greater-than here as equivalent to a colon or a comma in correspondence with a name. I would say "Zoe:" or "Zoe," to address her, not ":Zoe". So I do the same here. Also, though this is less of an issue, part of my brain still views a leading > as an indicator that something is quoted material, dating back to Usenet days.

107>

If you want to invoke the magic, it is > 107 without the space. I will be damned if anybody tries to force me into using a quoting format other than the one I'm comfortable with, though. I can put in the link if I want it, and don't like the idea that we have to "settle on a format" that everyone must use.

I don't care what the format is. I just wish Tim would use it.

109> I think you explained better the exact feelings I have about the issue!

My fingers are crossed that at the very least, the parentheses get un-linked and the duplicate name thing is fixed.

I'm constantly amazed at the level of detail people seem to take deadly seriously. I didn't know how touchstones worked, and then figured it out once I joined Talk. If there's a convention out there, I'm just happy to be told what it is and then use it, if it doesn't require undue amounts of time and effort.

eta: I'm mostly grateful Tim et al. are constantly improving the site and letting us have a say in the process! Design by committee though... never been a favourite of mine.

But it can be fun to analyze details that ultimately don't make much difference ;)

I guess I think of the arrow more as a word like "to"—or maybe "@", in Twitter usage.

114>

But it can be fun to analyze details that ultimately don't make much difference ;)

Absolutely! I'd never really thought before about why I prefer the format that I do, so it was interesting to try to articulate it.

>106 JerryMmm: that (name) (name) (name) really need to be fixed before we can continue

Fixed.

#114 by @_Zoe_> Precisely.

>114 _Zoe_: But it can be fun to analyze details that ultimately don't make much difference ;)

Good point.

I guess I do it my own way, when I'm cataloguing my books and obsessively editing all the particulars of my edition, which I usually have to spend at least 10 minutes on if not lots more when I have to google for extra information on books that are more rare. I imagine cataloguing obsession is pretty common on LT. Ultimately, it won't change anyone's life, and it's probably a waste of time that could be better devoted to other things, but oh so satisfying! :-)

I have used #> for years, but after reading this thread yesterday, I used ># in one of my replies last night. Today when I went to that thread, there was the link in all its blue glory. I hadn't expected that; I just thought I might try to get into the habit.

Personally, I like/am used to #>, but does that matter? No, not really. It's amazing how easy it is to get used to changes once you just shrug your shoulders and think, oh, well, I'll get used to it.

>120 PhaedraB:>

I'm trying to train myself to do what I've done above when I want the linkage, and use two arrows. I'll still use my old friend #> when I don't need it.

>120 PhaedraB: It's amazing how easy it is to get used to changes once you just shrug your shoulders and think, oh, well, I'll get used to it.

Amen to that!

This is totally OT, but I was just speculating that once this feature is officially implemented, lots of people might want to switch to their given name if they' have a username that doesn't have a special significance. But of course, most given names are already taken, including mine, as is my nickname, but I'm good with the compromise I came up with, adding my birthdate (a lady does reveal her age sometimes!) :-)

>122 Smiler69: I don't see that happening. There's really no change, the names we have are visible to all and what everyone "knows us" as; when you choose a name on any social site you have to consider that other people will be seeing it and identifying you with it, and choose accordingly. I don't expect anyone will want to change just because a reply using a particular format will now automatically include the name rather than people typing it in themselves.

A somewhat immature comment:

Whenever someone uses the new linkage thing with Zoë's name, I'm reminded of the emoticon thing that looks like (_._) - either a butt or Kilroy variation.

I decided against running a query against all the talk posts. It wasn't going to be a quick thing, but would require a special admin script. Believe me.

However, I did look at about twenty recent posts--taking ones from the hot list, and the top ones in the hot groups. It's clear to me anyway that >NUMBER is certainly the winner, and certainly more popular than alternatives. If anyone wants to dispute this, go ahead. But I'll want you to do at least as much random looking as I did.

I'm trying to decide the final version of this. The parentheses are bothering me. I'm thinking that the answer is

>15 timspalding:

>15 timspalding:

>15 by timspalding:

>15 by timspalding:

What do you think?

I thought I wouldn't like the parentheses, but I really do.

I've always used >#, but was ambivalent about this new linkage with the name. I've decided that the reason I don't like it is because it seems to me to be too limiting. When I reply to a post, I'm not always (or even most of the time) responding only to the person who wrote the post. I'm responding to the content and to everyone who has (or will) read it and is part of the conversation.

Chris likes "by." Chris?

>126 timspalding: I prefer no parentheses too, now you've brought it up. Cleaner. I would keep it blue, precisely because oftentimes it's the person's screen name, and as a visual reminder that it's an automated response, and not the way the person addressed the user, if they are in the habit of calling that person by their given name.

>128 lilithcat:

Fair enough. My sense is that it makes you remember what was said, because people remember people and their voice more than they remember numbers, and also makes us speak to each other, which may help with civility.

> 126

I'm not seeing any difference between your 1st and 3rd examples, or between your 2d and 4th examples.

Also, all of these links are taking me to the top of the page (ConceptDawg's OP), not to post #15 (which isn't a post by you anyway!). So I'm confused.

Chris thinks that

>15 by timspalding:

is ambiguous. It makes it look like maybe the message is BY timspalding.

(We're on the phone.)

>129 timspalding: Since you asked, I prefer no "by". Less extraneous stuff.

I'm not seeing any difference between your 1st and 3rd examples, or between your 2d and 4th examples.

Color, and whether the user name is part of the link or not. (People have said, but it's never true that it's a link to the user's profile.)

Also, all of these links are taking me to the top of the page (ConceptDawg's OP), not to post #15 (which isn't a post by you anyway!). So I'm confused.

Sorry. I'm just showing you what it would look like. Functionality is assumed.

>122 Smiler69:>

Why on earth would this change make anyone want to change their username? Can you explain your reasoning here? I can't see how someone would go from "I want to be addressed as lorax on LT" to "I want to be addressed as RealName on LT" just because of some pretty blue links, can you help me understand?

Let's stay on target. I need to solve this question—and then never change it!

I think I'll keep it the way it is. Adding the color is problematic if you want to say that >1 conceptDawg: was poorly reasoned. See how the name got inserted there? That's better than if it added a colon, etc.

>126 timspalding:: Urgh. I dislike "by". I like "(name)". I like ":".

>128 lilithcat:: When I reply to a post, I'm not always (or even most of the time) responding only to the person who wrote the post.
Me neither, but if I include the number it's because I'm replying to a specific comment, even if I intend my reply for anyone who happens to be reading, and the name is helpful as a check (easy to get the number wrong). If it's automatic, people won't overinterpret.

>129 timspalding:
I like "by" better than parentheses, especially if there's no line break after the link. But it's not a big deal.

Web page navigation logic makes me feel that there ought to be a way to get back to the reply once you've clicked on the link to read the post it's replying to. But I don't see a simple way to do that. Maybe a "to bottom of page" link?

> 138: Adding the colon is problematic
Ah, yes, you're right.

I like parentheses because the name is... parenthetical. The main thing is the number.

I like the way it is.

Loranne and I are talking about:

>15 timspalding

I think that's the answer. It avoid the parentheses, which are more "stuff" and break the flow.

Also, you can then say:

>15 timspalding is wrong about the rhinoceros. He has two wings.

>144 timspalding: I'd prefer not that because it doesn't separate it from the text that follows. It would drive my Grammar Police heart crazy. Almost every paragraph would begin with a non-capitalized word!

>144 timspalding:

Okay, it's been changed. Tell me what you think.

>145 Morphidae:

Well, you create the separation, if you want it. Most seem to do it by a return. It's like the extra colons in many documents. Down the left of a resume people will have "RESUME:" as if I didn't know "RESUME" was a title from being all caps, bold, a different font, and in its own column. The : is superfluous.

>136 lorax: Good point, and happy to explain my reasoning since you ask so nicely. :-) I'm seeing it from the perspective of someone who's been active with the 75ers group (rather large and active group) for several years now, and I'd say the majority of us LTers who have been with that group for a while are familiar with each other's real names and tend to use them in convos all the time, so in that case it may sometimes be perceived as awkward to revert back to usernames instead.

For instance, let's say I'm addressing username.xyz who I know is called Jane, I used to address Jane thus:

> 21 Hi Jane I hope you're doing well. *

Now it will look like this:

> 21 (username.xyz) I hope you're doing well. **

or

> 21 (username.xyz) Jane, I hope you're doing well. **

* no space between >#, but just bypassing the current script.
** insert blue links

Some of us, not all, bold the name to make it stand out, so many of us who already use the ># are delighted to find that suddenly we don't need all that extra html to make the person's name stand out.

In any case, it was pure speculation on my part, and I may be totally wrong about anyone thinking the change is worthwhile. I just remarked on it because I was just now exchanging with a 75ers friend who just today asked for a name change to the nickname everyone calls her by, and I think this was partly motivated by the new function.

I prefer parentheses, but whatever.

>137 timspalding: Sorry, I was too busy typing my response to see your comment.

I prefer the parentheses; they set off the username from the text. Breaking the flow is a feature, not a bug.

>147 Smiler69:: > 21 (username.xyz) Jane, I hope you're doing well.
As a participant in the 75ers, I like this, because I don't always know who Jane is.

>150 lorax:: Breaking the flow is a feature, not a bug.
Yes.

>145 Morphidae: I don't mean the colon. I mean the parenthesis. From what I can tell of an extremely quick scan of Hot Topics, most people don't use returns.

ETA: There are two posts numbered 145. This is to timspalding.

Also ETA: A colon is fine. So is a parenthesis. I was speaking of there being no separation at all.

>147 Smiler69: You will still be free to address people by their names exactly how you've been doing, either following the automatic link or skirting it with a space or whatever so that it doesn't autoformat. But people have chosen the names they want to use here, an autoformated reply isn't going to change that. Brightcopy's script that already did this has been around a long time, and lots of people already use it, or else @ username on their own, too. This really isn't any groundbreaking new thing going on.

>140 thorold: I commented on this earlier. It's really simple: just click on the "show previous page" (back button) on your web browser.

Don't use returns? Do you mean don't use TWO returns. I don't see people putting the text on the same line as the >, do you?

There are two posts numbered 145. This is to timspalding.

We need to finally slay that bug. It's not that there are two 145s, but that sometimes it shows the wrong number when you add a message.

>151 qebo: Yes, but you would if you clicked on the link!

>154 .Monkey.: Sorry I ever brought it up in the first place. I was just being conversational, but obviously didn't choose the right platform for offhand comments.

eta: I should add that I'm perfectly happy with this new change, just putting in my two cents since I'll be using it all the time.

>156 timspalding: Yes, most of us keep the text on the same line, unless we're quoting something. And I, also, like the parenthesis to break it up.

>147 Smiler69:>

> 21 (username.xyz) Jane, I hope you're doing well.

That would make the few posts I do see where someone uses a real name (I'm not in the 75ers group, in part because of that convention but mostly because I could never find any actual book discussion among all the chat) far less irritating. I don't know Jane from Adam, and hate it when everyone blithely assumes that of course I know who it is.

>156 timspalding:: I don't see people putting the text on the same line as the >, do you?
Scroll up in this thread.

>159 .Monkey.:

Point me to a thread or some group?

>155 Smiler69: Yep, as I said. I did a quick scan and people respond on the same line as the >. I can list some for you. Mine and Donna's for two.

Other ideas for the resulting markup (doing some different things, I feel like we may have limited things earlier):

> 15 timspalding –

>15 timspalding —

<15 timspalding —

timspalding < #15

timspalding >15

timspalding << #15

#15 | timspalding <<

#15 | timspalding <

Strangely, I'm kind of partial to the last two. I wouldn't have thought that before I saw them.

>158 Smiler69:>

For me it wasn't that it was conversational, it was that it seemed like a total non-sequitur, on the level of "I wonder if this change will make more people have pasta for dinner tonight?"

Yeah. Okay. I think you're right in the top two challenge groups.

>158 Smiler69: (see eta)

>158 Smiler69: Um, defensive, are we?

>160 lorax: Agreed, while I sometimes use names in my own threads, unless there's just one or two posts above my comment I always include the number with it. I definitely do not know everyone's names and it does get awful confusing trying to figure out what people are replying to.

Strangely, I'm kind of partial to the last two.

Wha?!

> 156

Not usually, but it does happen.

Your reply was posted to the bottom of the topic.

Gosh, this is annoying.

>163 Morphidae:>

There's no post here by a "Donna". Not all of us are 75ers, and not all of us know people's real names - can you please refer to people by names we can find in this thread so that all of us can follow the conversation?

http://www.librarything.com/topic/169298#4547412

http://www.librarything.com/topic/170730#4570133

http://www.librarything.com/topic/168464#4529243

@lorannen is now official charged with replicating when the mis-numbering happens and why.

>173 Morphidae:

I conceded!

>172 lorax: Donna is the person's user name. She didn't post here, sorry.

ETA: I don't know why I thought everyone would just know who I was talking about. Dunderhead.

>119 Smiler69:

Just testing to see if I can make this work.

ETA, wow, I can.

>168 .Monkey.: Wow, that's kind of hostile. Maybe that's why I like the 75. There's an unwritten assumption that everyone is being pleasant. I don't seek argument, was the point I was making. I'll return to my corner and continue conversing nicely with people.

Or maybe I'll just ignore that swipe. Some people see a computer screen and not that there's a person at the other end. :-)

>169 timspalding: When you've all figured out what the script is and how to use it, I'll be happy to do so. Good work guys (and gals)!

>177 Chatterbox: Hey Suz! Fun eh?

I actually like the last two in 164 more because it's separating the number & name, and the other options make it like the post is speaking directly to that person. As people have mentioned, we don't always mean the reply to be to the person but about what was said there, so the first three, especially, feel to me like I'm just speaking to them, and the next three just feel completely wrong.

>169 timspalding: — I just don't know. The > bracket with the name on the right seems like the following message is FROM that person instead of a reply TO that person. I feel like the bracket should be pointing away from the message itself. I.e. FROM the message to the person, like a bubble in a cartoon does. That's why it's such an easy idea to understand in cartoons even for children.

Short answer. It should point FROM the message TO the reference. Now, I don't know how to do that the best way. My last two in >164 conceptDawg: were a first attempt at that.

The markup to make it happen can stay the same. I don't think it has to correspond 1:1.

>178 Smiler69: Seriously you need to relax, nothing I've said in response to your posts has been mean or, whatever it is you're on about, and yet you keep acting like I'm attacking you. Disagreeing with your odd statement about names is not an attack, or anything for you to get riled up about.

>138 timspalding: I was liking "by" until you posted that, but now I think you are right to keep it as it is.

(and then 50 posts went by while I was reading and responding, and my response became kind of irrelevant, but oh well.)

>125 timspalding: However, I did look at about twenty recent posts--taking ones from the hot list, and the top ones in the hot groups

First off, I'm going to go ahead and assume you limited your search to BEFORE you started this thread (which led to a lot of people adopting this format here and in the other group).

Other than that, it seems like if you go for the hot threads/group, you're basically just tailoring it to suite the 75ers. I suppose that's inevitable, as it IS the most frequently used group. I wonder what it'd be like if you hit up Talk about LibraryThing or The Green Dragon.

Of course, the few scans I did pointed out that you can quickly get biases depending on if a thread has users posting a lot to it, always using some whatever form of reply tagging on every post. To do it up proper, you'd break down the results by username. So 75% of users prefer style A, 20% style B, etc. But I know that's a lot of work to do it the right way.

#138 by @timspalding> I think I'll keep it the way it is. Adding the color is problematic if you want to say that >1 conceptDawg: conceptDawg was poorly reasoned. See how the name got inserted there? That's better than if it added a colon, etc.?

I don't know, I think basing it on this edge case is kind of pointless. I think use in the middle of a paragraph is going to be - by far - in the minority.

I think maybe I'll just turn my script back on. :)

#15 – timspalding << With a message starting here. I think there needs to be some context to see if the markup will work well with the text around it. It should be obvious so that it's easy to see that this is a response to a previous post, but not be so obvious that it's distracting.

Oh hell, they're all starting to look the same.

Green Dragon, pre-change:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/163618#4456697

http://www.librarything.com/topic/163338#4449667

Others had name only, number only or used a pound sign or dash.

The markup to make it happen can stay the same. I don't think it has to correspond 1:1.

I don't agree there. The display tells you what markup to use.

I think use in the middle of a paragraph is going to be - by far - in the minority.

Agreed.

Okay, if people want separation, but they don't want parentheses—and @lorannen and I don't want them either—then I'm going to go with > + name + colon.

Oh hell, they're all starting to look the same.

Miller Time.

>186 Morphidae: A colon is fine.

>164 conceptDawg: My reaction to most of these is a big, Vader-esque "NOOOOOOO." All but the top three seem way too cluttered, to me. I could live with the bottom two if we hacked off the angles, and just left it with "# | username".

To be honest, I don't much care for the whole real name thing in the 75ers group either, but I use it because it's the norm there. But now I have the excuse to only use the automagic thingie. :D

ETA: Instead of having to look up someone's real name for the ZILLIONTH time because of my awful memory.

#186 by @Morphidae> Yeah, I saw those, but I also saw plenty of others where it was the other way. It all depends on the thread you picked and which posters are active on it.

---

Oh, and again on the topic of embedding this thing in the middle of the post, that's likely a TERRIBLE idea. You're going to need to really lock down the patterns on this thing to make it avoid munging lots of html. Allowing it to be in the middle of a paragraph is just begging for screwups. I think you should really limit your pattern to it being at the beginning of lines.

>187 timspalding: The display tells you what markup to use.

Agreed. That way, even the most computer-illiterate user can figure it out.

I think you should really limit your pattern to it being at the beginning of lines.

Any objections?

Agreed. That way, the most computer-illiterate user can figure it out.

I can't believe CH is to the left of me on simplicity.

>187 timspalding: The colon is great. We need something to set off the name.

But you really need to fix that numbering bug. It seems to happen in fast-moving threads.

>193 timspalding: No objections, if people want to link in the middle there's always HTML available.

>189 lorannen: I can see the opposition to those, certainly. Just opening up the conversation. Sometimes you don't know a good thing until you see it. Other times it's just a bad thing and you see it and it's an even worse thing.

Loranne raises the point, well, why NOT allow it inline? I suppose I agree, although it won't be the main case. Perhaps I need to see examples of it failing.

But you really need to fix that numbering bug. It seems to happen in fast-moving threads.

Yeah, I think that may be the answer--that it's about post numbering not getting from the "master" computer to the "slave" in time.

123 This should be some italicized text starting with the number 123.

Hello >123 .Monkey.: this should be a reference to post 123, whatever that is.

Hello>123 .Monkey.: And this should be a reference to post 123 where they left off the space.

Yeah. I've already used it inline in multiple places in the last day. It's a nice thing to have even if most people don't use it that way.

Why are we stuck on using the angled brackets?

We are referencing a post here, and posts have numbers. The # sign is commonly used to preface a number.

If it would display with the # it would avoid the directional connotations the brackets have.

.

Adding the name seems to introduce more ambiguity about who said what IMO.

This should be a ham sandwich, followed by a reference to post one.

>1 conceptDawg:

Works!

Messages are coming in too fast to keep up typing replies :(

>201 JerryMmm: I disagree about the added confusion, but perhaps that's because I'm accustomed to the notation. Plus, you're not the first to raise this issue. I don't necessarily object to the idea of the # in its place, but it looks a bit messy to me, for some reason.

>205 timspalding: is one of the smartest posts I've ever read.

>202 timspalding: If we go with colons, then in-line references should be out, I think.

>201 JerryMmm: Because I'm not counting, I'm not saying number two-oh-one, I'm referencing post 201.

>207 .Monkey.: >201 JerryMmm:

There is no right answer. Custom is all.

>204 lorannen: I'm also accustomed to the > 204 convention, I'm just looking for a way to solve some issues that have come up in the thread so far that weren't thought of initially.

Right, it's not "right" or "wrong" but that's the reason *I* have never used # for it.

>207 .Monkey.:
I hadn't offered my re: 207 solution yet ...

Re makes LibraryThing look like work.

>212 timspalding: Lolz.

"Re:" does look incredibly formal.

kind of liked the parentheses, but the colon is ok... whatever.

>213 lorannen: I concur.

If you add the colon, you'd better keep it. I'm getting double colons in my messages now because I always add it, but if I stop adding it I fear for the consequences.

I've always used the pound sign before the number in the past, but I will retrain myself to use whatever is settled on in the end, probably. Or I could just continue doing what I have always done...

>216 qebo:

Threats? ;)

>218 timspalding:: Not at all. Just waiting for this thing to stabilize before I get set in different ways.

For what it's worth, I like the colon. A lot.

I can't figure out any way to break the formatting inline, so far.


I̹'͊͗m̠̥̣̆̒̂͌ ̩̝̟̜̖̙̽ͮͅp̪͉̉̌̑͊̉r͔̪̺̟͙ͣ̿̎o̝̲̒b̜̩̱̲̖̦ͩ̏ͧͥå͎͙̝͍̰̣̼͋b̯̹̺͕͕͙ͣ̉ͤ̈̈́͆̂l̹̳͕̬̯̟ͤ̉͋y̰̺͋͊̄̋̇ͥͅ ̝͈̾j̻̜̙̮́u̯̙̦̓ͨ̔ͥs̳ͬt̘͍͇̟̖̂ͨ͆͛ͧ ̗̱̦͎̫̱ͪ͛ͅb̰̲̍̅e̅̈́i͈͋nͣ̅̏g̟̘͂̂̓ͭ͐͗ ̺̲̦͆ͩ͂ͧͣͮ̚p̞͓͉̣̞̲̽̿ͦ͑a͚ͥ͑̋͐ṟ̥̖̮̮̲̦̐ͪͦ͋a̙̘̿ͥ̏̈̿͑̚n̻̬̲͎̖ͤ͌ͣ͗̇̎o̻̻ͣi̭͉̐͑ͪ̍ͨd̟̞͓̈́.̥͔͚̱͍͊ͤ

>221 brightcopy:

It's the last thing that's done to the text. So if it makes it through to that step, it happens.

I don't care how it looks or what the final decision is, I'll just go along with the crowd on this one.

BUT, there's always a but, if it requires some action on my part more than clicking on reply - then it would be most helpful to have a sidebar with instructions like how touchstones are currently.

I don't find blogs effective because I never go back and read old blogs so if I miss it then I'm out of the loop - or, for example, if it is blogged today and somebody joins LT next year, what are the odds that they would see that old blog?

The hope is that, because the markup is just made "live" that people recognize how to do it from the examples they see. I want to keep explicit instruction to a minimum. After all, most topics do NOT need an explicit reply convention.

if that was the case Tim then why do I need that thread about how to do fancy things?

Wait, the rhinoceros has two wings?

(People have said, but it's never true that it's a link to the user's profile.)

People were talking about brightcopy's script. Just for the record.

I'm happy with the simplicity of the colon, and I think it makes sense to follow the most common usage for the rest, rather than trying to come up with something new.

I don't much care whether it works in the middle of a line or not.

#224 by @timspalding> More accurately, they'll figure out how NOT to do it, i.e. the way that it looked like from the examples they saw: >224 timspalding: timspalding:

"What the heck? Why did it get timspalding: on it twice? I typed it just like everyone else did!"

"There is no right answer. Custom is all."

+1

>224 timspalding: timspalding: if I see >224 timspalding: timspalding: everywhere, I would start typing that. resulting in the double names.

I like the colon, but only at the beginning of the line; mid line, it looks kinda funny.

Already in the 75ers, word is getting around. I’m not too concerned about people learning.

I like the colon, even in the middle of the line - it marks it as a link (along with the rest of it). I'd still prefer doubles (on this and the @ name link), but it looks like that's a non-starter.

I still like the parentheses best. But I'll go with whatever, especially since I don't actually have to change what I type at all.

I like the colon, but only at the beginning of the line; mid line, it looks kinda funny.

I might be able to do it in a way that it's only there if it's mid-line. I'm a little afeared of that, however. These patterns get complicated and can go wrong…

>234 timspalding: Parentheses would work in both places. :-)

>234 timspalding: Leave it be for now, please. It's Friday, @conceptDawg announced elsewhere that he'd be headed out for vacation, and that's been a lot of code changes in a short time. There's always next week to play in the fields of PHP (so to speak).

How about a nice game of chess?

I like the parentheses the best. The name inside the parentheses identifies who wrote the earlier numbered message to which you're referring. The colon at the end of the name makes it look as if the recipient is actually the speaker. :(

>237 SqueakyChu:
I agree. I feel a bit like I'm looking at a script, and the text next to that person's name is their line. But I also had this same feeling with the parens approach. I think that's why I'd rather just do something like:

which should also help the "I type >237 SqueakyChu: SqueakyChu: and it spits out >237 SqueakyChu: SqueakyChu: SqueakyChu:" problem, as well as the feeling I keep getting that the linked username seems like a link to their profile when it's really not.

I'd rather hovering display the referenced message (with a cutoff).

Truthfully, I actually wouldn't mind doing away with the username completely and just use the bracket and number as I did before. I like to use real first names when talking to people. This is a personal preference and not everyone likes this. However, I do it with friends on forums here more often than not. I see it done with me as well. If I were forced to use the person's userid as we're now planning, then I'd either have to be redundant by calling someone by two different names in one reply or stop using their real life names completely.

I'm easy, though. Whatever all of you choose will be fine with me. This is not such a critical issue.

Sure, the beauty of the tooltip is that it could be more verbose without getting in the way. It could just read "timspalding" or could be more like "A reply to message 234 by timspalding: 'I like the colon, but only at the beginning of the ...'", I don't care much either way, but I think either of those would be less confusing than the current implementation.

>238 omargosh: I vote no to hovering. The username is useful for a quick scan. Hovering is tedious.
>240 SqueakyChu: You can bypass the system by adding a space (> 240); which, looking at your thread, is what you typically do anyway.

>242 qebo: I agree that username hovering is unnecessary, whether the username is shown in the post or not. The idea of hovering pulling up some, or all, of the post in reference is actually something I'd be extremely interested in, though. Especially with the long threads in this forum. If I go up to the earlier referenced post, I lose where I currently am in the thread.

#243 by @bestem> Yeah, I'm liking the idea more and more. In the likely event that it never happens as a part of this change, I'm thinking of making a greasemonkey script to do it.

#135 by @timspalding> People have said, but it's never true that it's a link to the user's profile.

But it is in brightcopy's version, and I for one like it, though I can also see the advantage of making the link to the message bigger by including the username.

243, 244> But, of course, hovering is useless for those of us who browse Talk on touchscreen devices anyway. Seems like it could have other accessibility problems as well.

>243 bestem: Yeah, for text of the previous post it could be useful, more convenient than scrolling back and forth.

>242 qebo:

You can bypass the system by adding a space

I know. But if this is the convention that LT agrees upon, I would like to use it and not be contrary.

It's just a newly available option, you can continue to do whatever you've been doing, it's no big deal.

>248 SqueakyChu: I'm of similar mind, changing habits already before the format is settled... have preferences but will accept whatever decision is made, because I like the link and the auto-name and the convention of it.

We're settled on the input format, I think. The only question is the output, whether it's > 345 (timspalding) or > 345 timspalding:, etc. But even there I think we're settled.

I may also add:

* A grammar for pointing elsewhere, like > 12353:345 in case you want to point to a post to a post elsewhere.
* A way to jump back after you follow a link to see an earlier post.

Attacked? Wtf.

>251 timspalding: A grammar for pointing elsewhere, like > 12353:345 in case you want to point to a post to a post elsewhere.

That would be really useful, I had one today where I would have used it to point to a different thread. I can never seem to remember the html for links so this would be much easier than googling it every time.

I think we could actually translate the URLs into the right structure too. I'm unsure which is better.

>246 keristars: We'll, for my suggestion it doesn't really matter if it's useless for touch screens. In that case, you tap the link and it jumps you to the context. Hover hints are great for nonessential stuff like that where you don't actually lose functionality by not having it.

You know, I used to love hover links. Then facebook went bat-shit-crazy over them and I couldn't move the mouse without tripping into one of them. Now I hate hover links and tool tips and pop up anything..

256> Ah, I guess I was thinking how much I'd love a hover-text on the link when I'm on my phone and don't want to have to click the link/scroll, because it's so annoying to navigate in the browser.

Is it too late to mention that I have decided I prefer the parentheses also?

How is this going to improve my book cataloging experience?

>260 rgurskey: The time you save not having to type people's names or scroll back and forth when you use Talk can be used to catalog more books and generally improve your catalog and/or the time people save not having to do the same can be spent on helping you when you post about cataloging questions and bugs.

>251 timspalding: very helpful! thank you. And yes to jumping back from whence you came after following the useful link to the post being referenced. Yes, too to being able to reference posts in other threads. It doesn't come up too often for me, mostly because it is a pain to do right now. I think it could lead to some beneficial cross-pollination between groups.

>251 timspalding: now you just need to announce it - with all the details on how it works and the extended versions to other threads - in one place. I only found it on this thread by accident. And the follow ups you mention - especially getting back! would be very useful.

I'm still somewhat irked about how the code processes this such that it means there's (almost) no way you can actually type >(number) and have it show up like that verbatim if there's a message in the thread with that number.

In other words, try to make this show up in your post:
>100
(Just like that, with no spaces and without having someone's name after it.)

There's only a handful of people on this site that I think know how to do this. Heck, *I* didn't know how to do this a few years ago.

I think the implementation is bad and will be yet another thing in Talk that will occasionally munge posts.

264>

How do you do it? HTML entities don't even work, since the "linkify this" is later in the chain.

I'll send it via PM. Will wait and see if anyone figures it out (if you do, just post it but don't tell how you do it).

(I should also mentioned that while I tested it in current FF, Chrome and IE versions, it likely will fail on some browsers. I especially wonder about mobile.)

>266 Thanks!

Will be interesting to see if LT staff can figure it out without cheating and looking at the raw source of my post. New question for LT programmer interviews? ;)

> 264

Man, that's annoying. I generally put a space after the ">", but on occasion, I'm typing fast, and would be really irked.

I'm guessing it's &#x003E;123 or &#0062;123. ?

Testing: >123 .Monkey.: or >123 .Monkey.:. Ah. Only the latter works.

You can just do &#62;123 which is slightly easier to remember. Though I can never remember the numbers for escaping square brackets and always have to Google "librarything escape brackets" when I need to use them in Talk. (And of course today when I Google that, the old result that used to put the escape codes conveniently in the Google excerpt is nowhere to be found. Bah.)

>123 .Monkey.: works too - which was >&#0049;23

>273 omargosh: They're &#91; and 93, or else &#x5b; and 5d. <— Escape brackets code! ;)

Okay, so I was apparently missing the obvious and it was already pointed out in >81 omargosh:.

I was using a zero-width non-breaking space aka &#xfeff; (hence being unsure if it worked across browsers).

But I stand by that neither of these are going to be at all obvious. It wasn't obvious to lorax, and I think people know she's not a newbie in the world of computing.

Now, practical examples of where it'd screw things up? I admit those are harder to come up with than something like tim@librarything.com (please at least say that's on your list to fix, Tim). Something like "If you make the cover width >32 r.orrison: you will likely get problems." And yeah, fairly easy to just add a space there.

Of course, if message 32 didn't exist when I originally saved that post, then went back and clicked Edit and Save again, it would then get munged even though before it was fine.

So yeah, maybe it's a little alarmist but this is just how I think. I try to avoid unintended consequences and recognize when something might come back to bite me in the future. This really seems like one of them and there are already too many on LT.

>275 .Monkey.:
Thanks, though now you should edit your post to read something like "The codes for escaping left and right square brackets in LibraryThing talk posts are ..." and then maybe your post will actually be found when I'm Googling for it, hehe.

Well, I don't like all that dull talk, so you get just a condensed version. Maybe it'll help. ;P

But I stand by that neither of these are going to be at all obvious. It wasn't obvious to lorax, and I think people know she's not a newbie in the world of computing.

No question. But Talk is designed as it's designed. If you use >X it's to link to a post. The circumstances when someone would want to do that in other contexts is vanishingly small. Members who want to continue to reference posts with >X without linking to them… well, sorry and I hope they get used to the way Talk works now. The feature is broadly useful, simple to understand, and can be avoided by all but the most determined naysayers.

>276 brightcopy:
Didn't know about xfeff and since it's pronounceable should be easier for me to make some mnemonic to remember it. Plus it's versatile enough to be used for other cases, like tim@librarything.com or http://librarything.com so that I don't have to look up escape codes for "@" or "h" or whatever. So thanks.

279>

If you use >X it's to link to a post. The circumstances when someone would want to do that in other contexts is vanishingly small.

Perhaps. But is it so small that rendering it all-but-impossible is desirable? (If it were me I'd have made the linkification >279: with it resolving to the current format inserting the username. The chances of that incantation being invoked other than on purpose for linkification would be truly negligible.)

Or just make linkification only work if it starts a line. That way something like brightcopy's scenario won't get munged.

>281 lorax:

I'm afraid I think >281 lorax:: is more fiddly and less obvious. As it is now, people will imitate what they see. They'll see

>281 lorax:

and they'll type

>281 lorax: lorax:

The result will be

>281 lorax: lorax:

That will show them the lorax was unnecessary, and that's that. If they don't get it, at least it will still work. I don't think anyone would type >281 lorax:: without being prompted to.

Or just make linkification only work if it starts a line.

I can see that. But I'm not going to change the code until it generates real problems, not potential ones.

>279 timspalding:

I think you're entirely missing the point. People get that on LT and other posting systems, are often "special". The very first way they're going to try to fix them is &lt; and &gt;. That's how it works just about everywhere. Well, except LT, now. Sometimes.

And I'm not saying "nay" to the feature at all. I'm asking you to put a little more thought into the implementation which - frankly - seems pretty hackish from this side of the screen.

> 282 I can see that. But I'm not going to change the code until it generates real problems, not potential ones.

This is going to be brutally honest and a bit asshole-ish, but in my experience you generally don't fix it then, either.
tim@librarything.com
tim@librarything.com
tim@librarything.com
tim@librarything.com
tim@librarything.com

>282 timspalding:

Fair point. Of course you could have the "to insert a reference to a previous post, do this" help text over by where you explain Touchstones, but if you're expecting people to pick it up naively your method's probably best. I think 90% of people will say "help, why did it double up the name", or open a bug about it rather than deducing the correct approach, but it can be easily explained.

>283 brightcopy:

Yeah. We all know about &lt; and &gt; now, it would be nice if they worked in this case.

The very first way they're going to try to fix them is < and >.

Fix what?

Yeah. We all know about < and > now, it would be nice if they worked in this case.

WHY would it be nice?

>285 timspalding: First, a note that your post munged the original by not preserving the html entities. Just to make that clear to readers.

Fix what?

Fix cases where something like "width>30 lorax:" turns into "width>30 lorax:". Anyone who had ever ran into this situation before on other message boards would try to fix that the NORMAL way by changing it to "width&gt;30" which works for all html escaping problems on this site except for this one. You've created a weird little corner of Talk where normal, expected rules don't apply.

>286 brightcopy:

You have given me no case where that actually happens! Sure, you can force it to happen, but only in cases where the user has screwed up and left dangling HTML tags in the first place. The first instinct in such cases shouldn't be to "fix" this feature, but to fix the HTML tag in the first place. If you attempt complicated HTML and fail, it does weird things. The car bumper dents if you drive into your garage without opening the door. Open the door.

I'm sorry but "your implementation is half-assed" is much more convincing when the problems aren't just theoretical. And so long as the code can be typed at all, there will remain theoretical problems.

>287 timspalding:

It's not a dangling HTML tag, it's a greater-than sign.

"If your width is >300 matthewmason: pixels you will have problems" will get munged in a thread where there is a post 300.

And your solution is…?

If you want to have an escape sequence—backslash+\>—fine. I think this is a very rare case, however. And I'm not going to make it something harder to type and less obvious, >X:, to do away with a rare case.

Tim, sometimes I wonder if you're really reading my messages or just skimming them. As lorax pointed out, I gave you a real example. But your asking for a "solution" shows that once again you are missing my point. I'm not asking you to change what the user types in order to backreference another post. I'm asking you to change the implementation under the hood so that you can type &gt;30 and have that ACTUALLY work like it does any other time in Talk.

This would in no way change what the user types for references.

291>

Sorry, that's partly my fault for my parenthetical remark that I would have chosen a different reference. But yeah, Tim seems to be willfully obtuse here with not understanding either your statement of the problem situation or your suggested solution of allowing the same solution that works everywhere else in Talk to work here.

>292 lorax:
Ah, he's just being grumpy because he doesn't want to rewrite his code to fix a problem he doesn't think will come up much at all, if ever. I gotta admit, I don't see it as likely to happen much either.

Brightcopy can always fix his posted example by writing it as if your width is > 300 pixels.

I'd kind of like it fixed myself, though. Leaving it screwed up feels... sloppy.
But I'm not the one who has to write the fix. I'm sure if I was that would make a difference in my attitude. :)

Here are some GM scripts to see, in a tooltip, the text of the message that's been linked via the new notation:

Reply preview (basic version)

This one just does plain text stuffed into the "title" attribute, so browsers will do different things (not a clue if they even look halfway decent on a Mac, or if the line breaks get all messed up ... YMMV). Alternatively, you can try:

Reply preview (HTML version)

This one just copies the HTML into a jQueryUI tooltip so it should look mostly like the original reply (except smaller) and is better about hovering north of the link if there's room. But the hover behavior might be a little messier than in the basic version.

When I have both on, it looks like the HTML version takes over. Lemme know what problems you encounter. Thanks.

Nice!

I've just installed the HTML version on my Mac and it works just as intended.

>294 omargosh: Wonderful, thanks!

At nearly 300 posts, it's way past time to move on to Part 2 of this thread.

>omargosh

Would you object if we made your feature general?

Pretty cool!

>299 timspalding: Would you object if we made your feature general?

Yes, I object. But I will lift my objections in exchange for implementation of this RSI. :-)

(Though you may have yet further objections in other corners, e.g. >257 southernbooklady: "Then facebook went bat-shit-crazy over them and I couldn't move the mouse without tripping into one of them. Now I hate hover links and tool tips and pop up anything.")

Hopefully it wouldn't be implemented in the old version.