none
Update to quoting capabilities requested. RRS feed

  • Question

  • In my old newsreader I could quote multiple items. In this forum I only seem to be able to quote everything or nothing. The following is an example which I created in another post:

    =====================================================================

    Not quite. What I was trying to do was something like this:


    1=>

    Select the forum you want participate. Once the forum is completely loaded, below the forum title you can see

    Add to my forums - Click on that link.

    Once you have add all required forums, you Click "My Forums". This will list only those forums you have added.

    My comment here...


    2=>

    Once you open or read a new thread, there is an option for setting alert. You can use this feature to achieve the notifications, which will be directed to your mail, or to your msn messenger as an alert notification.

    Another comment...


    3=>

    Since this forum is a web application, i suspect how much keyboard shortcuts we can use. Hope some other expert over here has a better answer.


    Final comment...

    But I've done that by editing the HTML directly. As I said earlier - Life's too short. :)

    Roger

    =====================================================================

    It would be nice to be able to select a block of text in a post and quote just that text, and have the ability to do it multiple times in a single reply.

    Roger
    Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:56 PM

All replies

  • Hmya, that used to work two versions ago.  Trimming a quote isn't exactly rocket science, just select and cut the bits you don't need. 

    Perhaps more to the point, quoting is so nineties.  This isn't NNTP anymore, the web interface and alert feature allows you to respond to posts in minutes rather than hours.  No need to repeat what was already said, it is plainly visible in the thread and almost always right above your response.

    What is especially good about that is that you no longer have to throw the parts that you disagreed with back into the face of the poster.  There are a lot less flame wars thanks to that, nothing like quoting out of context to set somebody off.  Halleluja to that.  Perhaps that explains why a web interface is popular?

    Hans Passant.
    Saturday, May 30, 2009 10:12 PM
  • > Perhaps that explains why a web interface is popular?

    Maybe to ensure this continues they should dump this ability to quote. 

    (I've seen an increasing number of posts where there is a quote in full for which there is absolutely no need - here is an example of that here where the two people feed off each other http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/suggest/thread/4add7917-6d1f-4309-8868-84806a3b7e2a )
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:25 AM
  • Quoting may not be rocket science, but when you don't want to quote the whole post it requires going into HTML mode. Remove the wrong bit and the HTML breaks.

    I also agree that if this were really a social forum, quoting would be unnecessary, but this is a technical forum. When someone is describing a problem, the reply may require breaking that down into sections which have their own replies. Which bit of the reply refers to which bit of the question.

    Also, the reply could be 3 or 4 screens down from the question if there are mutiple reply posts, so you end up scrolling up and down to relate questions to answers.

    I know this isn't NNTP anymore. NNTP with a proper newsreader was fast. This web interface is much slower to navigate. As far as flame wars are concerned, I don't recall many on the Microsoft newsgroups, which is what I thought these forums were replacing.

    I'm trying to work with this, but it really seems slow and difficult.

    Roger
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 8:26 AM
  • Just noticed something else, who was that last post a reply to? Mike or Hans? It follows the post from Mike but was actually a reply to Hans. Seems that could start flame wars? In a properly threaded system that would be clear.

    Roger
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 8:31 AM
  • Just noticed something else, who was that last post a reply to? Mike or Hans? It follows the post from Mike but was actually a reply to Hans. Seems that could start flame wars? In a properly threaded system that would be clear.
    Roger:

    You have a severe case of NNTP-withdrawal. This is a serious condition that for some people never goes away.

    In NNTP, selective quoting is simple and you get good threading information by default. In the forums, neither of these things works well. This is part of the Question-Answer mentality of the forums.


    David Wilkinson | Visual C++ MVP
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 10:06 AM
  • David, I fully accept your comment, and if this was a social forum, I'd agree with you. But this is a technical support forum, where people ask questions and hopefully get answers; I just don't see the forum model working effectively in this scenario. Seems a bit like using a Word table to store your company sales info (and appologies to anyone who actually does this).

    Roger
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 10:20 AM
  • Rofer:

    I'm not quite sure I understand you here. I was saying that *because* the forums focus on question-answer pairs, there is not much emphasis on threading. All responses are viewed as steps in the grand directive of answering the OP's question. The sub-discussions that (for better or worse) often appear in NNTP threads are not encouraged by the format.

    I would have thought that in a social forum, threading might be more important.

    There is a threaded view in the forums, but it does not work very well, IMHO. This is because Microsoft has chosen the "wrong" display model -- when a thread is expanded, all the posts are shown, rather than just the posters, as in a typical NNTP reader. There is no reason why an Ajax web application could not reproduce something resembling the interface of a newsreader, and that would have been a better model, IMHO.
    David Wilkinson | Visual C++ MVP
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 11:46 AM
  • I guess that assumes you only get one answer to each question, in which case it would work.

    Roger
    Sunday, May 31, 2009 11:59 AM