I can see your point, but the current system works for me
because 95% of the replies are in answer to a Seekers of Perl Wisdom question
(or a Meditation or Perl Monks Discussion like this one) and so they seem to
"belong" with the others. I don't really have strong feelings one way or the
other, however, and I may only prefer the current way due to it always
being that way for me. At the very least, I'd like to keep the
Breaking News and the Q&A sections at the bottom, as they are different
enough from the other sections to warrant it, IMO. Both Tutorials and
Cool Uses are rare enough that moving them would not really
bother me much. My pet peeve is people who change the
title of their replies, so that one cannot tell what thread
it belongs to unless you read all the root nodes and memorize
the titles as you go. True threading on the Newest Nodes page would
make a very nice feature and fix that problem.
my TwoCents;
| [reply]
[d/l] |
$what_she_said *= 10000l;
I really don't like changed subjects, it makes conversations much too hard to follow.
Nuance
| [reply]
[d/l] |
I'm glad to see you bring this up, athomason, as the same thought ocurred to me recently. FWIW, I'd like to see the layout be as you describe.
And I also agree with Turnstep's kvetch above about "anti-thread" reply names. I respect that some of our fellow Monks have reasons for completely changing the node name of their replies, but it *does* make it tougher to follow context. Kudra started a very logical reply naming scheme a couple months ago, that I think could be encouraged as "suggested standard" of sorts. It goes something like this: RE(3)Original Node Name Here(Brief Reply Title Here). A variation includes the replying Monk name with the RE (n), but I fail to see what value that adds, since the replying Monk's name is always associated somewhere close anyway.
My opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them.
cheers,
ybiC
Update: thanks to chromatic, who pointed me to The Threading Dilemma which already discusses in depth these points and much more.
| [reply] |
