Comments submitted to Community Posts
In the community, when a post is made, there can often be numerous replies or comments by people who see the specific question or comment.
It is not uncommon for me to see a string of responses to a POST - and then see a comment - that was NOT the original post - but was rather a comment/reply from another user. Sometimes I will want to provide clarification or feedback to that specific responder - with comments that apply to that specific person who replied. - and maybe are not meant as an answer to the original question.
It seems to me that in the old community - when we did A REPLY - to a comment in a large string of responses - it was clear how our response was stored - as to WHICH exact message in the entire thread we were replying to - (if it was not the original post)
In the new community - it seems that even if we are (attempting to ) replying to a specific response (and not the original post) - -that the way our post is stored - does not make that clear.
I do realize that we can respons privately to that person directly - or we can word our comments specifically so that we specifically state what person in the thread we are replying to or focusing on.
BUT I do wish in a long thread - that we could reply either to the original poster - OR to a person who responded - and have that selection - clearly indicated by how our response was displayed. (which is how i thought the OLD community worked)
its not uncommon for me to post something where I am trying to clarify or correct soemthing another responder posted - and it ends up being received by the poster - who think my comments apply to then - instead of the other person who responded.
What do the rest of you think????
Answers
-
Dennis J Yancey,I completely understand what you are saying. If you have a suggestion for a better way for the Community or FamilySearch to work, please post it as an idea rather than a question. We appreciate any good ideas or suggestions that you may have. (Go to the left side if on a computer or the bottom if on a phone and click on Idea rather than Q&A to post suggestions)
Perhaps if we include the contact name of the person we are replying to at the beginning of our comment it will make it more clear who we are addressing.
Thanks!
0 -
it simply needs to allow for a REPLY to a specific post - and then display it that way - which is how it used to work - I thought,
Im guessing this is a function of what the vendor provides (or doesnt) - and I doubt FS really has too many options to correct it - other than make strong suggestions to the venddr.
(the same story - - on so many of our concerns with the new community - that are simply the result of the lack of functionality and flexibility of the vendor that was chosen for the community software. )
1 -
There are advantages and disadvantages to "threading".
The main advantage, as you point out, is that it makes it a lot clearer what exactly you're replying to.
The main disadvantage is that once the discussion has gone on for a while, it becomes virtually impossible to find the new responses, because they're not chronologically at the bottom, but interspersed throughout the conversation. This is not a big problem for someone reading the messages after the conversation has mostly concluded, but for someone trying to participate as it happens, it can get downright infuriating.
I've never figured out a workaround for the "what's new??" problem, but for the "what's this responding to?" question, a simple application of old-fashioned email etiquette can easily provide the answer: just quote the relevant bit, and attribute it. For example:
@Dennis J Yancey wrote:
(which is how i thought the OLD community worked)
Yes, as I recall, the old GetSatisfaction forum had one layer of threading: replies to replies were indented below the relevant reply, but responses to those indented posts were not indented any further and sorted to the bottom of the indented part. This type of limited threading allows for somewhat easier finding of new responses, but gives only a broad structure to the conversation.
1 -
yeh -
I wasnt referring to Get Satisfaction - I was simply referring to how it worked in the old community. . .
yes - ir probably work similar in Get Stafisfaction.
but yes - I agree with the quoting part.
0
