Ignoring continued threads and etc.

I'm looking at this bug:

Continuation of ignored thread not ignored
https://www.librarything.com/topic/227246

It raises a functionality question: How should LT work?

1. Should ignoring a topic ignore all topics in the "chain" of continueds?
2. Should it only ignore topics going forward, or backward?
3. Should starring star not only a topucs, but all in the chain of continueds?

I'm thinking that ignore should operate on all threads in the chain, but starring should have no effect beyond the specific one you're on.

I'm NOT going to have some sort of mixed solution, where ignoring or starring auto-ignores everything in the chain, or that comes into the chain, but you can selectively un-ignore or un-star topics one by one. That way lies madness.

As a quick note, when I ignore a topic, I'm pretty sincere on the ignoring. I do it because I don't want to see it again, and that won't change just because it's continued. On the other hand, if I've starred something, I'm capable of noticing it showed up as a continued thread, and I can easily put a star on it again.

Hope that helps. :-}

>1 timspalding: I'm thinking that ignore should operate on all threads in the chain, but starring should have no effect beyond the specific one you're on.

Yes, I'm with you there.

For me a continued thread is basically the same as the original - just split because of load times and volume. So anything I had done on a thread should be also done on its continuances.

I can live with needed to star a continued thread though. But yes - if I ignore something, a continuation should automatically be ignored.

Why should a continued thread *not* maintain the star as well? What's your reasoning to think that someone who starred the first half of a thread would suddenly lose interest just at the time when it was continued?

Also, I personally think it seems much more complicated to have one thread affect multiple others forever, rather than being a one-time thing.

In other words, I think the simplest solution would be:
At the time a new thread is started as a continuation of an existing thread, check the status of the previous thread. If someone had it on ignore, automatically add an ignore to the continuation. If someone had it starred, automatically add a star to the continuation. Then stop worrying about the linkage between those two parts.

But you're saying instead that, at any time, starring or unstarring a thread should change the status of possibly dozens of other threads—e.g., if I decide to star Part 21 of a thread, it should automatically star the previous 20 parts as well, even though those old parts don't really matter now anyway. I have no particular problem with this, but I really don't see why this is the simpler solution and the other way is madness.

>6 _Zoe_: I agree with you there. I think both ignoring and starring should apply the same status to continuations, but certainly not for previous segments of threads.

I'd be really unhappy if I had to re-ignore every one of the mega-threads that are on their hundredth iteration rather than having them just stay ignored. I really don't care about what happens to the now-quiet previous versions that won't be appearing anyway.

for me there are so many threads on LT that without the stars I quickly lose track of those I want to follow. If the star didn't carry over to the continuation (as it currently does) I could easily miss them. And besides, if you star part one of a conversation why would you not be interested in part 2, 3, 4? And if you aren't interested any more, then just unstar the whole series.

I'd prefer for stars to carry on because I have quite a few threads I follow in groups that I ignore as a whole, for example the reading challenges (which can be big and busy). If the stars disappeared, I'd have to keep going back to those groups to look for the continuation of those threads, if any.

>1 timspalding: starring should have no effect beyond the specific one you're on
No. A star means I want to keep track of this thread. So if someone continues the thread at some random moment without adding a notification post at the bottom, then I'll lose track and not realize it. The behavior of ignore should be consistent, but at least I'd realize when a thread is not ignored.

The behavior I expect is the "simplest solution" of >6 _Zoe_:. I thought it was working this way.

I'd like stars to carry on, too, although I have very few starred posts.

I really want "ignored" to stick to all future continuations. Like >8 lorax:, I don't care about past threads so much, as long as some spammer doesn't reactivate them. I don't ignore often, but when I do, it's because I never want to see anything to do with that thread again. Years ago, I had to "ignore" a ton of game posts, although not many recently. Sure wouldn't want them coming back, though.

>1 timspalding: When you say "Should starring star not only a topic, but all in the chain of continueds" are you referring to all PREVIOUS topics in that chain? Or all new topics that have not yet been made?

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but I think one of the original purposes of topic continuation was to automatically transfer stars/ignores to the next thread.

I think starred and ignored should work the same way and they should just carry over when a thread is continued.

>1 timspalding:, >13 norabelle414: I found the original "Thread continuation" thread: https://www.librarything.com/topic/126131

Here is what you said, Tim:
"When the new topic is created, the new topic gets the stars and ignores of the old one, but from that point on people can choose to ignore and star them as they wish--they are created with the same information, but are separate from that point on."

_________________________________

I think you're over-thinking that bug from >1 timspalding:. From what I can see that was only ever a problem with one thread.

I'm liking what >6 _Zoe_: has because that is the most reasonable. Don't care about previous, if I've not starred to that point. But once starred or ignored, the rest should remain in the same state until I decide to change it.

So when continued, if I ignore, keep the ignore. If I star, keep the star.
Don't worry about the previous versions of the thread to that point.

>15 norabelle414: You're right about that, bug only affecting the one thread, but currently, I believe, stars do not carry over into continuations of threads. Correct me if I'm wrong?

>17 lorannen: When a topic is continued, it copies the stars/ignores of the topic it was created from. Any changes made to stars/ignores after that on either thread are completely independent.

>18 norabelle414: Noted. Maybe I found another instance of this bug, back in December, then. I distinctly remember having to star the continuation of the SantaThing thread.

When a topic is continued, it copies the stars/ignores of the topic it was created from. Any changes made to stars/ignores after that on either thread are completely independent.

Okay, I'll have to check but I guess that's what's happening now. I'm not sure it's what should happen.

If that's working, then let's just let it work as is, no?

>20 timspalding: I'm not sure it's what should happen.
Please please please don't change the behavior!

>19 lorannen: There are definitely issues every once in awhile, but I've never seen more than 1 or 2 a year and I star/ignore a LOT of topics that get continued.

>22 norabelle414:

That's my experience as well. Some inconsistencies, once in a blue moon a thread that should have a star/be ignored doesn't have a star/isn't ignored, but overall works as expected.

I'm not seeing the sense in preserving the ignore action across continuations, but not stars. If the logic works for one, it works for both (or doesn't). My interest or lack of it in a thread applies the same - it's binary. And it's easier to stop following or ignoring a topic than it is to reissue the same command (threads get lost).

>24 Bookmarque: I've starred posts just for info in that one post. I don't need every iteration of the thread forever more.

>25 PhaedraB:

You realize you can mark a particular post as a "favorite" without starring the thread, right?

>26 lorax:

I was just thinking the same. Favoriting posts is an easy way to keep in contact with a thread without burdening you with continuations.

>14 jjwilson61: "I think starred and ignored should work the same way and they should just carry over when a thread is continued."

Yep. It's all one thread - just broken up arbitrarily. Both should be carried over.

I used to use Favoriting all the time, but stopped completely when they added the annoying yellow background. Marking a message as a Favorite now discourages me from looking at it ever again.

I definitely want my stars to carry forward on a continued thread--that's how I manage my threads! I don't ignore that many so have no opinion there, although it seems easiest to do it the same.

I agree with continuing stars as well as ignores from each thread to the next in the series.

>29 _Zoe_: Out of curiosity: yellow background? Maybe that's a style thing based on browser? On Mac/Chrome, I don't see a background color (yellow or otherwise), other than the alternating white/faint blue color designed to help distinguish between lines.

ETA: Unless you're talking about the highlight that appears when you mouse over a Talk post in the list of posts?

>32 lorannen: when I favourite your post, it turns yellow. not only on mouseover.

I agree, it's ugly.

chrome, w10

I agree with the people upthread who consider continuations as "the same thread": both starring and ignoring should carry over.

>32 lorannen: Hmm, I'm also using Chrome on a Mac.

>32 lorannen: Clicking "Add to favorites" turns the post bar yellow and the message has a pale yellow background. W7, FF51.0.1. Clicking "Add to favorites" again removes the color.

>35 _Zoe_: Huh. I don't doubt that it's there for you (and others)—just odd I don't see it. Tested starring a few just now to make sure, too.

>37 lorannen: Happens on Firefox as well (just FYI). Here is a snapshot:



PS: Favoriting and starring are two different actions. Starring do not cause that. Favoriting does.

>37 lorannen: As AnnieMod said, this is completely different from starring. It came up because someone suggested it as an alternative for people who didn't want to star a whole conversation.

I definitely want my stars to be continued with the topic.

I like the yellow color of favorited messages.

Please, please continue stars with topics ... it's the main way I keep track of things when I've been away doing life stuff and a thread's moved on.

Same with 'ignoring' - my guess is that I'm similar to many in being unlikely to want to re-engage with ignored threads ... if so, I can always de-redX it.

Also, I really like that 'Favouriting' turns a message yellow. Very useful for picking it out of a thread. Would be sorry to see that change.

Both stars and ignoring should continue when a thread is continued. The stars are more important, but I don't want to have to reignore a lot of stuff, either.

>44 MarthaJeanne: I agree, if I've starred it, keep it that way and the same if I ignore it.

>37 lorannen:

Favoriting, not starring. This whole sub-conversation is about that distinction.

>38 AnnieMod: (and others) Thank you! I completely forgot about favoriting being separate from starring, and conflated the two. Yes, I do see that yellow highlight in favoriting. :)

Okay, I think we've ended up where we started. The system works the way it was intended--every star and ignore on a post continues forward to the continuation when it's made, but there are no post hoc additions or subtractions along the "chain." One post, in 1, didn't do this for some reason. But that's not a systemic bug, and doesn't call for a systemic fix.

>48 timspalding: well said

>48 timspalding: Yep, I agree.

finito