What do you think about a branched fluther question and discussion system?

Personally, I like the simplicity of the way things are set up right now. I’d rather it stay the way it is instead of having the branched idea that you mention.

I could go either way. That sounds nice, but I have no complaints about the way things are right now.

@Seaofclouds I see your assessment – however when you have lots of one-liner responses it gets crowded sometimes without content. Having the option to easily turn it on and off though could make for different browsing modes.

@phoebusg I get what you are saying, I just hate the way that branched forums look. I like being able to just read down the responses in the order they were written. I also like the way we can answer the question, plus respond to other people that have already given answers all in one post. If we were to switch to branching, conversations could get confusing as people are trying to answer the question and respond to other people at the same time.

We had that on wis.dm and it took some time to get used to the way things are on Fluther so I don’t mind it either way.

@Seaofclouds I think it wouldn’t be that big of an issue. You’d always surf on view all. Those that don’t can see that responses are referring to previous posts and unlock the ones they need. Or provided people always use the @___ develop a branched logic to easily track the responses that you fancy.

The added usefulness is being able to have much deeper discussions while keeping them both neat and navigate-able.

@phoebusg I’m sure it probably could work and people would adjust to it. I just personally wouldn’t like it. I think branched forums look messy and like I said, I like the simplicity of Fluther. I think we’ve had numerous deep discussion with the existing set up and I really don’t think branching the responses would change that.

@Seaofclouds maybe the forums you mentioned had a badly designed implementation.
Personally I find that I tend to avoid responding too much if it creates too much spam. Granted I just did it, and didn’t like it :P

I’m not just arguing with your position. I took it, tried to look from it and find solutions to keep us both happy, and hopefully others too. Although I see the generic human response to change :) You have to test it first to know. Which goes for many types of solutions.

@phoebusg Where you avoid responding in concern of posting spam, I enjoy it as part of a discussion. You see the generic human response to change, but I see the past experiences I’ve had on other forums. I don’t mind change at all and if there is a change I’d give it a fair change. I have been on the internet for a long time and have come to develop my personal preferences for what I like when I’m online. Simplicity is always something I go for because I have enough complexity in life as it is.

This is why I like the whisper function. It makes it easy to respond to another user/comment without detracting from the main flow of the thread. Users can easily skip over whispered responses if they wish, but there’s no complicated branching or collapsible boxes for side discussions. It’s clean, neat, and easy to follow.

@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities good point, although it may also cause eye-strain, or hand-strain from having to use the zoom function more often :)

But where I was going with this was more in terms of a much more complex unifying system. Finding and connecting harmonious discussions or of the same topic/arena. Complexity is great, for it is simplicity – over and over again. You can have one within the other, through understanding and smart design.

I memorize linearly. I would be totally lost if things branched off. And search here- though improving- still leaves a lot to be desired. So it would really just make me twitch to have that feature at this time.

@Dog I thought dogs were supposed to be good at sniffing :) Fluther indeed needs some sort of magic glue to connect things together. I call a brainstorming session.
By branch I mean something spider-like. But it’s still living in the cloud of my neurons and not properly expressed obviously :)

“The name of the game is I like it like that.” (The way that it is, I mean.)

I think Answerbag operates (or used to) in that was. A separate string could branch off of any comment, eliminating “chit chat” on main answer threads. But they didn’t have a PM function, so it forced everyones communications onto retrievable threads. I think what we have here is better, side conversations can be by PM.

General/Social.

Whisper. Nuff said. Zen out.

I like the way it is. That is why I am here because I like it.

While I mostly like the current setup, I think such a “branching” feature might prevent a bit of thread-jacking.

Considering that the “off-topic” and “chit-chat” replies are removed by mod gremlins after a few weeks or so, I doubt that it would really make any difference except while the thread is still active. Most threads rarely acheive more than 60 answers, anyhow.

@actuallery We remove off topic chatter in the General area out of respect to the asking party who has chosen to ask the question where it will be addressed seriously. Social is really not attacked by “mod gremlins”. (Also I sort of prefer “Stealth Mods”) Just sayin’

@Dog – If I flag your reply as “Off-topic” will you delete yourself? (hehehe jk)

@actuallery Funny but true – I have modded myself for off topic. I also nuked myself for accidently giving away the secret to a Fluther award. Bad Mod!

That system would help smart-asses like me direct their comments to their targets, but is confusing and difficult. I vote no.

@actuallery yes, but the thread is also read most close to when it was posted :) (another fluther challenge to think about—keeping old threads alive and fresh).

@filmfann it is confusing and difficult to design. Personally, I’d try a system before voting. Here, we’re talking about design.

Do you have alternative ideas? :)

The main problem, as I see it, is that many people would go “off-topic” and there would (or could) be many topics discussed within the same thread. Also, as I have seen in other forums, it becomes inpersonal when two people are having in-depth discussions in their own little sub-thread and others no longer feel able to join in. The sub-thread sometimes can end up longer than the original thread.

If the sub thread was limited to about 6 subs then, perhaps, it might be feasible.

@actuallery good points. I think the on/off easy feature would work wonders. Especially if it floated.

The other question is how to unify all the similar topics, or make it really easy to navigate. Tying in, the old threads dying – problem.

@phoebusg I know they are working on the topics right now. Did you notice the changes from a week or so ago? They are trying to organize the topics and make it easier for people to get questions in the “questions for you” tab based on the topics we put in our profiles.

As far as thread dying, they aren’t really threads, they are questions. We have to remember that this is meant to be a Q&A site and not a social forum. As much as it is very social because of the people that stick around and contribute daily, the main purpose is Q&A. Not every question is meant to have discussions that go on for days.

@Seaofclouds functionally, it’d rather the wealth of old threads/questions were not lost in the depths of the database. But easily accessible and relative to new questions. This task requires a lot of work from volunteers and staff. Categorizing and connecting questions in a hierarchy. Imaging a big web-based branched structure. With discussion (answers) stemming from that and also connection on their own depending on qualifiers.

Who really wants just a Q & A format, anyway? Look what happened to Wikipedia when they tried to do that? I assume to presume that this forum is more about discussions and though some do go “off-topic, it really adds to the flavour of the thread rather than taking anything from it.

@phoebusg Have you noticed the “siblings” box on the right of the screen when you are in a question? Those are questions similar to the one you are viewing at the time. It’s not perfect, but it is there. Also, if you click on a topic, you will get a list of questions that have that topic in it, so that effectively does organize questions together by topic. You just have to click to get to it.

I get what you are saying, but honestly, if something that immersive were to happen, there would have to be a lot more control on how people tagged questions for the way they were grouped together. Otherwise, it could get very messy.

Yes, I use it occasionally. It’s not good enough, hence the brain-storming. Again, messy is a design problem.

Two examples come to mind that could help you visualize. The branches music relations that some music sites use. Where you see similar artists and their relations. The branched linguistic relations of a word and its categories.

I get what you are saying. With topics, I could see linking related topics so that people could just click on them. That is kind of being done with the topics now, it’s just that the question asker gets to list the topics instead of some code deciding what should be related. That’s a lot different than branching the answers to a question (at least the way I’m picturing it, it’s a lot different).

@actuallery – Don’t you mean Wiki-Answers?