Become a Podshock Supporting Subscriber
Now more than ever, we need your support! Become a Supporting Subscriber today.

Threaded or Flat


Louis Trapani's picture

Louis Trapani - Posted on 02 June 2009

If you noticed in the other threads that have various replies, that they are threaded. By which I mean the replies are kept together. See Forum Test for an example of what I mean.

Optionally it "flat" comment thread I believe will follow the format of our forum of our 2.0 site. Each new reply is added to the bottom and not grouped with the message it is replying to in the thread. At least to my understanding I believe that is how flat will work.

Without being able to automatically insert a quotation into the reply from the message we are replying to, I think threaded may work better. But perhaps it may be harder to follow. I guess we will see how it pans out in use here.

Cheers,
Louis

Louis Trapani's picture

I was able to add a new user specific options on viewing the comments (replies) in the forums. Any thread with at least one comment should give you controls on how to view the comments (replies). So you will be able to choose "threaded" or "flat" and so forth.

Also, now you can reply right at the bottom of the thread.

Cheers,
Louis

I personally find threaded to be rather frustrating to deal with when it comes specifically to finding new posts. So flat + quoting is my preference. To each their own.

But so far it, the new site looks good. :)

Louis Trapani's picture

We could change the default to be flat. I have added the option to allow people to choose between the two now. I just wish the forum would allow the option to automatically quote the message you are replying to so it would make flat easier to follow if you knew what the person was replying to in their reply.

Perhaps we can give flat a try and see how that works.

Cheers,
Louis

I'm not really liking the look of the new forum at all at the moment. The new site in general is very good but the forum doesn't current;y feel very 'forum-y' if that makes sense? It feels more like a list of comments and is far too narrow. I hope Louis is able to make it wider and that it grows on me.

Doctor Whoovie's picture

Have to agree with Capricorn1's comments. I have a nice 20" widescreen monitor which was nicely filled by the 'classic' site. Now the area which previously housed the left and right side bars (containing quick links, adverts, information etc.) are blank (well tiled seals of Rassilon). Consequently, the space which used to be reserved for the main content has been divided up into three (the now narrow main content plus both the sidebars). Sorry to whine, my Mum used to say 'if you haven't any thing nice to say then don't say anything' but I never listened to her!

DarthSkeptical's picture

Let me see if I understand this. We've traded a forum where italics and bolding were simple, one-letter commands to one where you've got to use a word one letter longer than the word "bold" itself — strong — just to get dark text? And there's no ability to have colored text, at all? I'm not seeing that as an allowed tag. Let me try, by giving this next sentence the standard HTML command to turn white: How will we hide spoilers? Nope, that didn't work at all.

But perhaps most objectionable is the complete lack of quoting facility. Seriously, how can you have a discussion when you can't easily quote people? I mean, I can imagine we might jury-rig some usage of the definition-list commands — dl and dt — but that's an awful lot of manual work to get to something that only approximates quoting. It won't be nearly so easy to read or follow as what we had before.

In short, this isn't really forum software but commenting software. Not really seeing the wisdom in this, Louis, especially given the fact we're losing the Outpost as well. That basically leaves DWO as the only major, genuine Doctor Who forum left. Was that really your intention?

Have a lemon sherbet. It'll quench your thirst.

Louis Trapani's picture

You can use the WYSIWYG editor, choose input format and you will have the option of using a "Rich Editor" where you can choose to your colour text if you like. You can even use white: so you can't read this here unless you highlight it. <-- white text.

As I explained in ther postings, this forum is part of the core CMS software, so it works more like an article and commenting system as used in the rest of the site. The previous CMS didn't have any options for a forum, we were using a 3rd party plug in.

There is the possibility that we find good 3rd party forum plug in to use with this CMS as well. If nothing else we may be able to make it appear more like a traditional format forum.

The lack of being able to automaticly quote the message you are replying to is the biggest drawback.

The announcement of Outpost Gallifrey closing at the end of July was a coincidence that it was timed while we opened up our new site here.

We are trying to iron whatever bumps we can which can be ironed out.

Cheers,
Louis

Louis Trapani's picture

Oh, I forgot to menition, if you are not using the Rich Editor, you can use <b> for bold instead of <strong>. Both HTML tags will work.

Cheers,
Louis

Louis Trapani's picture

I don't think the Rich Editor option was turned on for authenticated users. My bad. It should be available now under "Input format"

Cheers,
Louis

daveac's picture

Just changed to 'Flat Settings' and much prefer it - mainly for the fact that the replies don't keep getting narrower!

Cheers, daveac

DarthSkeptical's picture

You've completely lost me, Louis. Not seeing this "rich/WYSIWYG editor" option anywhere. Also this sentence is in bold, using the b tag. So why isn't the b tag working? Also, I have NO idea how you're interjecting code, cause this is what happens when I use the code tag: This text enclosed in () tags. The entirety of that was enclosed in cite tags and there's a cite tag in the parentheses.

Have a lemon sherbet. It'll quench your thirst.

Louis Trapani's picture

You should see it now. I thought it was set up to be available after one registers on the site. Sorry.

Cheers,
Louis

Louis Trapani's picture

Yeah, I see the <b> was being filtered out in the Filtered HTML input setting. I don't know why the software was set like that as a default, I added the <b> for that input format now. So it should not be filtered out as it was before for the "Filtered HTML" input format.

Hence, these are the kind of bumps that need to be ironed out.

Cheers,
Louis

DarthSkeptical's picture

I don't think the Rich Editor option was turned on for authenticated users. My bad. It should be available now under "Input format"

 

Ahhh, there it is.  And there's a quoting facility, even if it's hardly intuitive, and doesn't link the quote to the name of the quoter.  But man, this is a tiny, tiny font which defaults in this rich text editor.  Any idea what that last double quote symbol (underneath the Omega symbol) means?  Mine's greyed out, so it's impossible to tell.

Have a lemon sherbet. It'll quench your thirst.

Louis Trapani's picture

The double quotation marks are only grayed until you select some text. Once you select text, it becomes available. It is used to make "citations"

This is an example of a citation.

I am not sure if it would be of any use.

Cheers,
Louis

Louis Trapani's picture

Yeah, in the end, the citation results in just italicizing.. It should just go away as it will only add to the confusion.

Cheers,
Louis

Louis Trapani's picture

 

Any idea what that last double quote symbol (underneath the Omega symbol) means?

Citations went away. They should be gone now as it didn't seem to serve any purpose if the final result was simply italicized text.

Cheers,
Louis

Please investigate a forum plugin, I'm sure we'd all chip in if cost is an issue. At the moment I'm liking the new site in general a lot more but the new forum a lot less.

Just my two pennies!

Thanks

I have been investigating other forum options. There may be some good news possibility in terms of third party options... if they work properly within the CMS here and if it is not too complicated to implement. I need more time to investigate and research it.

daveac's picture

Trying the Rich Editor - Playing with it - for fun :-)

Here's a recent picture from my weekend paper - as a 'test image'

EDIT - Not 'upload' an image but link to one already up.

Unsung Hero

 

Cheers, daveac

 

daveac's picture

In the old Forum I often posted picture up to my PhotoBucket size limit of 1024x768

When I displayed them in the GE forum I'd use the ('width="512")
so that is would fit the forum but be of higher quality if people 'saved it' to view.

Looks like a width limit of 512 or thereabouts will be all this forum will take - or will it 're-size' any image to a percentage of it's full size?

Cheers, daveac

You should be able to resize the image if you are using the Rich Editor's picture icon, it will pop up a window which you can enter the dimensions of the image. If you just enter the width, I believe the height will automatically be scaled to match.

daveac's picture

 

Here is another image that is 1024x768 - same image as before.

unsung hero 1024x768

 

set at 512x344

 

EDIT - just saved it back to my PC - as 1024x768

 

Cheers, daveac

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

New Doctor Who Podshock schwag

Podcast Feeds

Subscribe to
the Doctor Who podcast
Doctor Who: Podshock


iTunes users click here
Podcast
Gallifreyan Embassy - Doctor Who: Podshock - Doctor Who: Podshock


Direct podcast feeds:


Doctor Who: Podshock
Podcast


MP3 Format Podcast:
Doctor Who: Podshock MP3
Podcast


  More feeds and info

  Supporting Subscribers

BEST PODCAST

Doctor Who: Podshock Awarded BEST PODCAST
Doctor Who: PODSHOCK

DW Podshock App

iPhone, iPad, iPod touch podcast companion app

Doctor Who: Podshock Podcast Companion App

Doctor Who: Podshock Companion App

Syndicate (RSS Feed)

Syndicate content

Poll

How do you rate Doctor Who: Flatline? (5=Fantastic)
5 TARDIS Groans
0%
4 TARDIS Groans
0%
3 TARDIS Groans
0%
2 TARDIS Groans
0%
1 TARDIS Groan
0%
0 TARDIS Groans
0%
Total votes: 0

Amazon US Store

Amazon UK Store

Latest image

DW Podshock 314 Cover

BBC Shop (UK & Europe)