Selecting how you view threads

[Steve Price]

Hi People

Years ago we used a software package that displayed threads in what's known as "Threaded" format, in which the list of posts was shown with each reply connected to the one to which it was responding. Most people liked this because it let them keep track of multiple topics within a single thread.

For the past 8 years or so, we've been using other software. It was superior in many ways, but the only way it would display threads was in what's known as "Linear" format, in which the replies are shown chronologically. Our regular participants are accustomed to this format.

Our new software package 9this one) supports displaying threads in Linear format (with the oldest post at the top or with the newest post at the top, at the user's option) or in "Hybrid" format", which displays the Threaded view at the top with each post linked through it's title, and, below that, a Linear view with the oldest posts first. Personally, I like this best, by a wide margin. But we are concerned about possibly confusing some readers with it, so we have set the default view as "Linear, oldest post first"). You can select whichever view you prefer when you register. If you are already registered, you can change your preference by clicking "User CP" and editing the Options section of you profile. You can make temorary changes in how you view any thread that you're looking at by clicking the link that says "Display Modes" at the upper right of every thread.

Please feel free to let me or Filiberto know if you need any help with this.

Regards

Steve Price

[Henry Sadovsky]

Hi Steve-

As of this moment there are 134 posts in the "Seistan Rug" thread (www.turkotek.com/VB37/showthread.php?t=226 4). 49 of the posts have been by me. I cite that solely to indicate that i am highly interested and engaged in this thread. That said, i am starting to have some difficulty keeping track of the separate strands within the thread. Such include:


- Seistan hypothesis
- M-Group
- 'Electric' sub-group of M-Group
- Color palettes and terroir

Attempting to get a clearer overview of the thread using the hybrid or threaded view does not help as it provides only the following as an outline:

http://i.imgur.com/YV9c3Mg.jpg

That, despite my (for one) taking care to supply posts with a helpfully identifying header. Have i simply missed an option provided by the current software that would make such a long thread more tractable? If not, i have a suggestion to make regarding the current thread, but will first await yours and others' thoughts on this.

Henry

[Steve Price]

Hi Henry

We're always open to suggestions.

Steve Price

[Henry Sadovsky]

Hi Steve-

As you and i have discussed (privately), and as might be readily apparent to anyone perusing the TT archives: the Salon format/software is quite suitable for lengthy, multifaceted discussions. Of course, when a conversation is initiated, it may not be well predictable as to whether or not a wide-ranging discussion will ensue.

Perhaps the posting of a topic as a Salon is unnecessarily viewed as a more formidable undertaking than need be. Should a topic that is anticipated to stimulate lively discussion turn out to be manageable with only one conversation line, would any harm have been done by posting it as a Salon?

Regarding the "Seistan Rug" thread, i have raised some ideas that have each generated a line of discussion. Unfortunately,those lines are intermingled. Nevertheless, i think the thread is follow-able by those with a keen interest in the questions raised. I suppose it would be possible, while leaving the current thread as is, to incorporate those lines of discussion into a new Salon ("M-Group Weavings of Khorasan (and Perhaps, Seistan)." That would require a fair bit of work, and i'm not sure such an attempt would be warmly received. I leave this to the judgement of you and all who have participated in "Seistan Rug."

Henry

[Steve Price]

Hi Henry

It's not especially difficult to split one thread into two or more, and it's very easy to move any thread from one forum to another (from Show and Tell to the discussion of a Salon, for example). The most difficult part is deciding which posts to put into which threads when one is split; individual posts sometimes don't fit comfortably into any of them.

Regards

Steve Price

[Henry Sadovsky]

... the remark about the organizational status of Turkotek didn't sit too well with me ...
... I find the organizational qualities of the site just fine, thank you.



The above, in response to:

Hi All-

Obviously i find this thread highly interesting and engaging. That said, i wonder if others, as i, aren't finding that its length and number of ideas introduced are not leading to intractability? I have an idea on how to deal with that, but first would like to get a sense of whether or not others are interested in trying something new? If so, please add your thoughts/comments here (http://www.turkotek.com/VB37/showthread.php?t=12) .

Henry

And:

Hi Steve-

As of this moment there are 134 posts in the "Seistan Rug" thread (www.turkotek.com/VB37/showthread.php?t=226 4). 49 of the posts have been by me. I cite that solely to indicate that i am highly interested and engaged in this thread. That said, i am starting to have some difficulty keeping track of the separate strands within the thread. Such include:


- Seistan hypothesis
- M-Group
- 'Electric' sub-group of M-Group
- Color palettes and terroir

Attempting to get a clearer overview of the thread using the hybrid or threaded view does not help as it provides only the following as an outline:

http://i.imgur.com/YV9c3Mg.jpg

That, despite my (for one) taking care to supply posts with a helpfully identifying header. Have i simply missed an option provided by the current software that would make such a long thread more tractable? If not, i have a suggestion to make regarding the current thread, but will first await yours and others' thoughts on this.

Henry


Not understanding the replies/references to the above, or why they aren't located in "Selecting how you view threads (www.turkotek.com/VB37/showthread.php?t=12)" thread.

Henry

[Steve Price]

Henry

They're in the thread that they're in because you raised the issue in that thread. I've moved part of it here. Unless someone has something constructive to add (the better organized sites to which you referred, for example), the matter is closed.

Steve Price

[Henry Sadovsky]

Hi Steve-

Below is a screenshot of the 'Forums' page at Organissimo.org (www.organissimo.org/forum/).

http://i.imgur.com/aYTpcY2.jpg

The Forums are for the discussion of jazz/improvised music. The site went on-line in 2003. There are now 4.4K members. Each of the 1.24M posts, to date, are retrievable via search, and each can be responded/replied to. There is a currently 'hot' thread (www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?/topic/3795-monks-columbia-stuff/) that was initiated 9/2003, went silent 10/2005, and was picked up again yesterday (10/11/2013).

The Forum is lightly moderated- the primary concern being to monitor for links to illegal downloads. As much as i like TT- the Organissimo site is, in my experience, superior in every important/conceivable way. This is good news! It means that, if there is interest to do so, TT can be even better than it already is.


Henry

[Steve Price]

Hi Henry

Thanks. Most on-line forums, like us and Organissimo.org, use vBulletin as the software. One thing that we do that they don't do is delete threads; we delete or we archive, a very few forums are simply left in place.

There are a number of reasons why we have this policy. One is that we prefer not to be a repository for stuff with no obvious lasting value, which is what most threads are. Another is that discussion threads within any PHP based software (vBulletin is one of them) are subject to the risk of being destroyed by hackers who attack the site or the server on which it's housed. Also, moving posts to new versions of vBulletin isn't always possible. For example, we're using vBulletin 3.8 right now; nothing on the previous version (2.2, I think) could be imported when we upgraded.

We minimize risk by archiving what we think is worth preserving, as static HTML pages. One advantage this has is that the pages can be stored on my hard drive and restored completely if necessary. We've been with our current web host for quite awhile now, and they're terrific. But we've had problems with previous web hosts that resulted in loss of stuff. Right this minute, I could change us to a new host without losing anything except the currently active discussions, even if our current host refused to cooperate in migrating the site.

Others have suggested that we never delete threads, and although I recognize that it carries certain advantages, I think the disadvantages outweigh them. I understand why you (and some others) prefer the more conventional administration systems, but I'm not willing to live with the disadvantages.

Incidentally, most other forums permit file uploading, which we keep disabled because of the risk of mischief. That makes demands on my time and Filiberto's (we edit every image file sent to us, for example), but we think it's worth doing.

I'm not just blowing the suggestion off, we have given it thought and decided against it.

Steve Price

[Henry Sadovsky]

.
The conversation continues at tinyurl.com/mdjvjo4.
.