Moving TubeNet here -- SubThreads

[Joe Baker]

In the interest of giving this a fair shot, here's a subthread off of the

Moving TubeNet Here

thread. I'm curious:

a) how many think threads are important.
b) how many think starting subthreads as I've done will be a sufficient replacement.

I'll put in the first question as a "poll question"; for the second question I'll invite comments.

Joe Baker, who is willing to give this a fair chance.

[Rick F]

I voted for the second choice (B?). Too clumsy.

[WoodSheddin]

I would love to see some more votes here to help me decide. I believe that the opposition is comfortable with the wwwboard and could become addicted to the phpbb version in just a couple of months usage.

[docpugh]

I agree wish Sean. Nobody likes change, but once they get used to the new format, I'm sure everyone will love the functionality.

Just my $0.02

Darrell Pugh

[JB]

[quote="TubeNet"]I would love to see some more votes here to help me decide. I believe that the opposition is comfortable with the wwwboard and could become addicted to the phpbb version in just a couple of months usage.[/quote]

I can tell you with certainty that the current ("old") format is far superior for my use -- the ability to see all at a glance as I drop in during a few free moments here and there. (And please note, I write "for MY use.") I'm sure I have read similar opinions on the old site as well.

I echo the sentiments of the many (here and the "old" board) who find this cumbersome, disjointed, increasingly time consuming, and awkward to use. If the switch to the phpbb version goes forward, then I will be among those who abandon this. The dislikeable qualities are inherent in the structure of the new site.

It is understandable that Mr Chisham only has limited resources (time) to volunteer in keeping this going. We are unquestionably indebted to him for all his efforts. However, losing -- or at least substantially diminishing -- the very qualities that made this such a great resource are disappointing, to say the least. I wish there were another alternative to consider instead of the phpbb.

[Leland]

I can tell you with certainty that the current ("old") format is far superior for my use -- the ability to see all at a glance as I drop in during a few free moments here and there.

It's still easier to see everything that happened on this site since I last logged in.

I got home, started my browser, opened up the front page of this site (among several other sites), clicked the "View posts since last visit" in the upper right, and all 21 threads popped up that were active since this afternoon (including this one).

As much as I also liked the simplicity of the layout & low-bandwidth friendliness of the old site, I'm happy to see it on this software now. What once took me twenty minutes to check is now taking me five -- including typing this reply.

I no longer have to ignore the For Sale posts, since I'm not in the market for anything. I can see twenty posts in a thread with just one click. I've already been IM'd by someone on the board, which, on the old board, would have required one of us to try to catch the attention of the other, exchange email addresses, and proceed from there. If I choose, I can be informed of when someone adds to a thread in which I posted (VERY helpful for those of us asking for opinions or selling things).

We all learned to walk, use forks, drive cars, and type on keyboards. We can learn the new website. Even learning to play an instrument was more difficult than any Web surfing I've ever seen.

[WoodSheddin]

Has anyone in admin. given any thought to how much time it takes to open and close so many windows of a browser without a DSL, using only a dial-up modem?

Sometimes when I would have only a few minutes, I would connect and review at a moments notice ALL threads, and opening only ones of interest to me or that I have been following. Busy people only have so much time until the decision to use the New version becomes to darned time consuming and awkward.

a) I think threads are important.
b) I think starting subthreads as Joe Baker and others have done will not be a sufficient replacement.


Roboslack

Good point about opening many windows to read a thread on slower connections. With the new software you only open 1 page and see 10 or so posts at the same time. The old software required opening 10 windows to read all the posts in a thread.

[Leland]

Has anyone in admin. given any thought to how much time it takes to open and close so many windows of a browser without a DSL, using only a dial-up modem?

A browser with tabs would help -- I do it all the time, whether I'm on DSL, dialup, or on the road with my cell phone.

I'd go to a section (say, Feedback, or View New Posts..), scan through the list of topics, and open each one in its own tab.

Then, usually, by the time I'm finished reading one, the next tab will have loaded up in the background.

That way, I don't have to go back & forth to find different topics. I was doing this on the old BBS too, but to stay practical, I would only open each thread in its own tab, and I'd still have to click back & forth to read each post's page.

[docpugh]

As far as sub-threads go, I find that the quote option here works just as good for the same purpose. It's keeps the tangents a little more relevant.

[Rick Denney]

As far as sub-threads go, I find that the quote option here works just as good for the same purpose. It's keeps the tangents a little more relevant.

Perhaps. But I think the main thing those who preferred the old format miss is being able to see, at a glance, WHO is talking in a thread. I do this also, and often let threads develop a little bit before I decide to jump into them. And I jump more readily when I know the people who are going back and forth.

The page that shows threads with activity since the last posting is quite nice, but it would much nicer if it showed a list of those who have posted in the thread. The threading isn't as big a deal for me as the group doing the conversing.

When you go to a party, don't you gravitate to the groups populated by friends (after being rejected by groups with high representations of attractive members of the opposite sex, of course)? You may subsequently abandon those conversation and get drawn into other conversations, but again often as much because of who is talking as the topic on which they are speaking.

But I belong to another forum that doesn't show the speakers, and I'm used to it there, so I'm sure I'll get used to it here. As an engineer who does a lot of systems engineering, though, I believe in the process of defining user needs and requirements before making design choices. I'd say this software defined the user as the forum host and did not comprehensively consider the forum members.

Rick "who would trade all those silly smiley faces for a list of people who have contributed to a thread" Denney