Is suppress reply when quoting too atomic?

I just added a site setting called “suppress reply when quoting”

The description for it is: “Don’t show the expandable in-reply-to on a post when post contains any quotes.”

I personally think our suppression here is a bit too atomic.

I think a much safer default is "“Don’t show the expandable in-reply-to on a post when post quotes the post replied to”.

As it stands, the default, throws away information from the UI that is still handled by the pipeline and leaves an odd UI glitch.

Let me expand:

  1. You reply to post #1 and quote #2 (post #3)
  2. After posting you still see the UI indicator that you replied to #1.
  3. On refresh that goes away.
  4. User on #1 is still notified of the reply, but can not see that #3 replied to them.

Should this setting restrict so it only suppresses reply-to when the actual post is quoted?

In my opinion if a user reply to a post. Then that relation should be preserved regardless of what the user quoted.

I can reply to you, and quote someones else post and say, "Hey sam check out what @johndoe1 said here.
[some quote]

and I would still expect to be able to follow who I replied to, or for the person I replied to, to be able to tell that I replied to his post.

I can agree with that, the intent is not to double notify.

It is always preserved the question is whether it is necessary to be displayed at that particular time. Remember we are shooting for a kind of minimalism here, versus the “explosion at the link factory” style of phpBB and its entire family tree.


Well, the wording needs a little working out :wink:

I think the rules for suppressing are getting way too complicated. I’d see it like this:

  • don’t suppress at all
  • suppress when replying directly above
  • suppress when post replied to is being quoted

with “replied to” meaning “I clicked “Reply” on this post”.

1 Like


This is now implemented and deployed, the fix is retroactive.

1 Like