No wonder I couldn't find it, once you said to look for depth, I did, and it wasn't in Display Settings, where I'd looked already as the logical place for it to be, but it wasn't, so I poked around more, now that I knew what to look for, and found it in 'User Settings', last thing on the page. Set both types, thread header/text to 100, and applied the desired sort order. Might not be the worst idea in the world to add that set of items to the 'Display Settings' page as well, since that's where I looked for it, and where you believed it to be, for good reason, that's where it makes sense for it to be, being related to display of page. Now it shows as expected, thanks. | [reply] |
> Might not be the worst idea in the world ...
When you see something like
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
it "might not be the worst idea in the world" to click on the link chosen depth to jump directly to User settings
Besides, you already got the advice to look for "Depth" after asking in the CB.
2021-04-18 16:34:04 h2
Is there a way to show the entire thread, including comments, without
+having to manually open each hidden comment or reply?
2021-04-18 16:38:21 Corion
[h2]: You can set that in your settings - "reply depth" or something l
+ike that
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
I'd say that when terms are used that don't generally correspond to how most of the internet web forums use terms, it's probably not the best idea to assume that these terms actually mean anything to users who don't already know the terminology. Similar to how on User Settings, I am pretty sure I saw those depth things faintly earlier, but since they referred to 'Notes', not 'posts' or 'threads', I really didn't know what they were referring to at all, and it was only after I got the hint to look for 'depth' that I realized those must be referring to the depth of the thread postings. The term 'depth' is not one I recall ever seeing in this context before, but usually these things aren't hidden by default, they are on by default, so maybe it was something I'd simply never run across. Basic usability rules: if you need to know what the stuff you are looking for is before you know what it is, that's not great.
There are now that I think of it a few tech sites that use this hidden by default method, but I honestly find them so annoying that I just ignore them, so I guess if you were used to those, this might make some sense. Generally my view on forums is if I have to join as a member to make the site usable, then I will generally just skip it and go somewhere else. Perlmonks is somewhat special because it's such a great resource, but the interface could use some work, it doesn't do Perl justice imo.
These things could be resolved by adding a few simple words to connect the dots, however, no worries, it was a one time thing, though I had to actually really think about it to figure out what these terms actually referred to. It's very easy to know what stuff means then comment that it said it right there, the problem is, it's not actually as obvious as you might think, I've never seen this type of terminology used on internet forums before, and I've used a ton of them, way too many, sigh. So I would hesitate before believing something is as obvious as you might believe it to be.
| [reply] |