|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Ditto
So do we like this idea or not?
NO! NO! NO! (But if they are to be used, the background color should be changed to be the same as the background color of the page.)
It is awful. I don't care what it looks like, I can't even follow this conversation, and my comments are ending up in places I don't expect them to.
The nice thing about using the wiki-syntax for our forums is it is the same as our talk pages and articles - ie, a new user only has to learn one way to have a conversation here.
The problem is that they have to learn how to have a conversation. Let's face it, MediaWiki is not exactly ideal for conversations.
Let's see, all you have to do is click reply, type something and click save. No having to figure out where to insert your comment, how many colons it needs, having to remember to sign your posts, and no edit conflicts.
I dispute the first point, as one has to scroll up and down the page trying to find out which reply button to click. This is harder than typing one more colon than on the last post, or typing four tildes at the end of the post, or even dealing with an edit conflict.
There needs to be a big post new comment button at the bottom of a thread, but otherwise, don't tell me it's harder to find the appropriate reply button than to figure out where to put your comment on a wiki talk page, assuming you're not replying at the bottom.
It is; for the latter, you just have to click "edit" and then grep the text for the post you want to put yours after. Here, because of the new rule about how "you're supposed to reply to the first post, not the previous one" (a remark of yours which, thanks to this new interface, I cannot diff-link to; another reason we should not adopt this, lest we give the Conservapedians ideas), you have to scroll up and down until you find the correct "first post."
Also, why do I have to hunt up and down the page and click an "Update" link before I am able to see my own posts?
So this is, by your own admission, buggy? That would rule it out for site-wide use immediately.
Yes, since it's alpha quality software. I have never denied that. I may have been too optimistic about the timeframe of LQT's maturation before, but right now the only reason it's installed at all is that I've managed to fix rollback on comments. Also, changing every talk page to lqt would be a huge job, we'd have to archive and clean up every talk page.
Right now, it's just here for testing, and if you like it you can enable it on your talk page.
That's why I said it needs a post new comment button at the bottom.
As for difflinks - each comment is actually a separate page. In the "More" dropdown menu you'll find a "link to" button, which will take you to the comment page: Thread:Forum:Use liquid threads in the forum?/Ditto/reply_(18)
What would be nice is a quote feature like most phpBB have.
I've added a reply button to the bottom of threads, hope that makes it more obvious where you need to click. Should I also add a reply button to the right side of the header, where the [edit] link is on normal headers?
But this has the added benefit of being incredibly fugly, in addition to being terrible at conversations.
Reminds me a bit of LiveJournal, honestly.
I don't know, have any of you guys actually used VB or phpBB at all? It's just the same thing but bunged onto MediaWiki. If we used it in the forum space, it would be exactly the same and no one complains about usability issues with proper forum software.
Well, I actually do have issues with "proper forum software", since it is also full of worthless clutter which just makes conversations less easy to follow.