Chronological View

ArcticHorizon·Nov 15, 2014·5 votes·1,515 views

Takes my replies out of context. Using the view, no one can see who I'm replying to. Out of context, my opinion looks crazy. It looks as though I'm replying to OP. To fix this, Riot needs to implement a "Replying to X's post" with a link, and a "view post" drop-down. If I disagree with a comment, but agree with OP, chronological view displays my message as disagreeing with the OP. Huge error. Context is important.

Also, the chronological order needs to be reversed. Discussion view is there to highlight the most relevant/controversial posts, so chronological view should give new posts a chance to be highlighted! Having the newer posts first helps ensure that no highly relevant/controversial/productive posts go unnoticed.

7 Comments

Riv x KobeNov 18, 20142 votes

I agree 100%.

I only use Chronological view and half of what people are saying are hard to understand because it is hard to follow context with it.

I dislike discussion view A LOT, and have no intention of switching over to it.

ElphrihaimNov 19, 20141 votes

Having the newer posts first helps ensure that no highly relevant/controversial/productive posts go unnoticed.

NO.

vBulletin is formatted the way it is for a REASON.

ALL POSTS ARE SHOWN IN THE ORDER MADE

being that reason.

It's just that the Boards have borked it such that the OP is not 'the first message on the first page'.

ArcticHorizonDec 6, 20141 votes

vBulletin is formatted the way it is for a REASON.

ALL POSTS ARE SHOWN IN THE ORDER MADE

being that reason.

That is not a reason, that is a rule. You didn't give a reason for that rule. Don't be closed minded, and think critically before trying to argue next time.

ElphrihaimDec 6, 20141 votes

That is not a reason, that is a rule.

It is actually, in fact, a reason--and you can easily discover that reason, just by using your brain. Rather, if you try to see such a thing and use your brain to understand what's going on if you are new to a given thread.

If, upon viewing a thread, things are posted in order of 'what happened most recently', should not the original post be at the bottom of the page?-- No, it is at the top. It is what people are discussing.

In the average human mind, seeing things achronologically messes it up. If you saw a post that talked about "it"-- a chain of replies that people chose to assign "it" to whatever it was that they were talking about for the formal title of that thing is long-- you would be confused.

While I know that's just one example, I really hope you can extrapolate from it.

vBulletin formats things in the order they're made for the simple reason that that is how a brain can best contextualize information. Reddit's format loses this, and sometimes people get lost in conversations.

Okay, actually, a different way of thinking about this.

In some asian languages (Japanese, Chinese) the characters are (sometimes) written vertically. You read the columns left-to-right.

Showing the posts in the reverse-chronological is analogous to instead writing that the way most romanji-based languages are (like, say, english). It's not wrong, and it can still be read, but it's confusing.

Another example would be a book. Is the last thing in the book "the front"? No, it's 'the back'. The end.

Why would you want to see something in the wrong order?

No, what these boards need, for Chronological view, is a feature like in Sufficient Velocity (and I believe in the old Forums but I'm not sure) where it is possible to jump not only to the newest page, but to the first reply since you last entered the thread. That would allow you to, effectively, continue where you left off, like a bookmark for a print book.

You didn't give a reason for that rule.

I felt that my choice of words made the logic self-evident. Showing things in the order that they came is conducive to thinking well-- hence, "all posts are shown in the order made"-- I merely felt that saying it that way would be much more brief (and thus quick to read) and less able to be misunderstood.

Don't be closed minded, and think critically before trying to argue next time.

Neither of these apply to me-- because I am not close-minded, and I do always think critically.

Maybe you should think more about why somebody says what they say. But I'm not going to say that as a fact-- not even because to say it as a fact would reduce my credibility should it turn to be false, but because I think that humans make mistakes and you are a human. Nobody asks somebody to be absolutely perfect-- that's being unreasonable-- but asking people to be a bit better than they are when they clearly aren't doing their best is reasonable.

You never need to add backhanded insults to an argumentative piece. Nor do you ever need to place straightforward insults. Just say what there is to say, and be done with it. Remaining emotionally neutral is a critical part of a good argument from what I have learned.

ArcticHorizonDec 6, 20141 votes

Although I apologise for back-handing you. I felt like the "NO." without a proper explanation (regardless of what you think might have been deducible/intuitive) was disrespectful/a backhand in itself, and felt vindictive.

Your choice of words was not insightful to me personally, and I consider myself quite capable. Given the number of forum-posters who aren't as capable, it would be safer than not to assume the reason you said what you said was because you were a creature-comfort, it-is-how-it-is type of person - such people are common on the internet.

I understand that it's helpful to see how a discussion develops chonologically, and makes no sense if you read it backwards unless you information-retention is pure genius. But that need is being serviced by discussion mode. Replies are listed under the original post, and anything with lots of replies are more likely to be seen than anything with few replies. The format you're suggesting, although making sense if you consider how we understand conversations, is made redundant by the reply-function in discussion mode.

Because of that, I feel that chronological mode should be treated as a time-stamped database. Having said database list things oldest-first means that new posts that aren't engaging with an already-existing discussion are never seen - even if they truly hold the most valuable content. Important insight can be lost this way which is why i think it's flawed. The first post has already had it's chance at being recognized as a valuable contribution, so should be last in the database.

Thanks for proper discussion. Much more insightful.

ElphrihaimDec 7, 20141 votes

Although I apologise for back-handing you. I felt like the "NO." without a proper explanation (regardless of what you think might have been deducible/intuitive) was disrespectful/a backhand in itself, and felt vindictive.

I felt annoyed that somebody wanted to destroy something that was already a shambling shack compared to a pristine palace. vBulletin/XenForo is far superior to this in my opinion.

So I wasn't clear because I couldn't muster it.

'No' is not a proper argument by itself. 'No, vBulletin is sorted the way it is for a reason' is an argument-- but a poor one without any substance. 'Sorting things in the order they were made' is the THING that vBulletin does, and sorting them that way gives all things an equal amount of visibility. Just scroll through!

On the other hand, things in reverse-chronological makes people confused. "Who said that line that you're quoting" being the biggest one that leaps to mind.

So while I still think the line of thought was deductable (though very hard), I also think that you are right-- It was certainly borne of rage.

I don't censor myself much if at all, my emotion is so raw that it is alive, if the analogy to meat is acceptable.

Your choice of words was not insightful to me personally, and I consider myself quite capable. Given the number of forum-posters who aren't as capable, it would be safer than not to assume the reason you said what you said was because you were a creature-comfort, it-is-how-it-is type of person - such people are common on the internet.

Yeah, it's a bit contrived. But it's hard to be nice when you're very mad-- and harder to be coherent the more livid one is.

It's even harder to reply to this when I don't know how A connects to B to C, let me tell you.

I understand that it's helpful to see how a discussion develops chonologically, and makes no sense if you read it backwards unless you information-retention is pure genius.

No, it STILL makes no sense if you join a discussion and see the newest thought instead of the oldest. Everything works better if you go forward instead of backward (part of why reverse-engineering can be so difficult).

Seriously, if you want your replies to not be taken out of context in Chronological View

QUOTE THE MESSAGE YOU'RE RESPONDING TO. IS IT THAT HARD?

But that need is being serviced by discussion mode. Replies are listed under the original post, and anything with lots of replies are more likely to be seen than anything with few replies. The format you're suggesting, although making sense if you consider how we understand conversations, is made redundant by the reply-function in discussion mode.

I think that Discussion Mode is a piece of absolute garbage that never should have been used for a forum to talk about things at length. It also makes my browser freeze every time I open a page. I will never use it. Just so you know my bias. :)

It's not redundant--because the conversation should make sense without having to reload the page. I'm not suggesting any formatting changes, just the removal of reddit/discussion view so that people actually quote what they're responding to.

So I think that the problem is caused by the design of the boards. People that use Discussion view will avoid quoting (no point), people that use Chronological view will avoid replying (no point).

So the Boards, despite being one platform, have two completely separate userbases.

Except the people that use Chronological have to deal with all these one-line, no-context "posts" amongst no-vote gems.

I... I have trouble explaining why I think things are stupid because I have too much faith in humanity. ,_,

I understand that it's helpful to see how a discussion develops chonologically, and makes no sense if you read it backwards unless you information-retention is pure genius.

But that need is being serviced by discussion mode. Replies are listed under the original post, and anything with lots of replies are more likely to be seen than anything with few replies. The format you're suggesting, although making sense if you consider how we understand conversations, is made redundant by the reply-function in discussion mode.

Because of that, I feel that chronological mode should be treated as a time-stamped database. Having said database list things oldest-first means that new posts that aren't engaging with an already-existing discussion are never seen - even if they truly hold the most valuable content. Important insight can be lost this way which is why i think it's flawed. The first post has already had it's chance at being recognized as a valuable contribution, so should be last in the database.

Except it also makes it impossible for new blood to join into a conversation. This is the same problem that Reddit has-- due to nesting limits, at some point, you CAN'T follow who said what because it's sorted based on who replied to what and the highest votes in a reply group. So sure, it's good at making new things show, but it also makes it easy to get lost-- it's only really good if you're checking back every few minutes.

Also, this sorting method too is flawed. Sorting by newest-first means that somebody makes a long an exhaustive argument that's beautifully crafted, but then a ton of people post one-line statements and that exhaustive argument is buried.

Lit. pointless line of thought because it works the same both ways. The first post could be the shortest, it could be the longest, it could be the best argued, the worst argued-- we don't know. Post order has no bearing on the usefulness of the post.

Therefore, it's better to have both "show newest replies at top" and "show oldest replies at top" for the people that want one or the other. Both are inferior, imo, to "show oldest replies at top + when opening thread jump to the most recent unread post" that XenForo has.

If this isn't a full reply then I am sorry but I got wrapped up in a bunch of other things so I just gotta dump this before I forget AGAIN.