Quoting images and videos from earlier in the topic?


(Jeff Atwood) #1

Quoting snippets of relevant text is fine, but fully quoting embedded images / videos, etc is discouraged in the software for a reason. It adds a bunch of repetitive, highly disruptive visual noise to the topic.

Same reason that “inception” style quoting is discouraged. No sane human mind wants to read

foo:

bar:

baz:

You done been inceptionated!

It is allowed in the sense that cutting yourself is allowed. We can’t stop you. You’re an adult. But is it a good idea?


Asciinema embedding
#2

This is totally a matter of personal taste.

But even if you only quote a bit of the text, users can open up the full, original stuff. Or it might show up in a “Replies” preview.

What you posted? No. So what? One terrible example does not a good argument make. You can tell everyone about how things they like are awful, but it doesn’t make it so. De gustibus non est disputandum.


(Jeff Atwood) #3

That’s true, and fair.

But for the record, I do feel like Discourse has the role of protecting human minds from seeing the bloodcurdling recursive quote abomination that is

Quoting full images and full videos from upstream is conceptually identical to quoting an entire (text) post from upstream. It’s reader hostile and should be frowned upon and discouraged in the software at minimum.


#5

when there’s an aside going on in a conversation where only a little bit is relevant, i prefer when people post the nested chain of that aside, because otherwise I have to hunt through old posts to find what the hell they are referring to.


(Mittineague) #6

So basically, a way for two discussions to coexist in the same topic?


#7

Correct, sort of. Unless something looks like it will be major discussion and totally unrelated, it is unlikely that someone will bother to go through the trouble to start a whole new topic for what is a series of 3 word inside jokes or whatever that relates to the original topic. Sometimes without the original topic, the aside doesn’t even make sense, so starting a new topic for it would defeat the point.

Sometimes the context of the original topic is what makes it work, so you’d end up creating a new topic and then having to copy half the content out of the old one so it makes any sense, at which point you’ve fragmented people who were in 1 topic into a bunch of different topics and it can be a pain in the ass to piece together multiple conversations from multiple topics instead of having it all in one. No I can’t make that sentence longer if I tried


(Jeff Atwood) #8

Well, if the asides go on too long, as they have here, a responsible moderator moves them to a new topic with a proper title.

Otherwise it clutters the original topic and makes the “new” topic impossible to follow, as it’s embedded in a different topic with a totally different purpose and title.

It’s the same problem: if the topic title is

I love strawberries!

A long aside about how Bush’s presidency was disastrous

  1. Has nothing to do with strawberries.
  2. Has no chance of being found by people who truly wanted to talk about Bush’s presidency… unless they also happen to love strawberries.

Really this is moderating 101.


#9

And in a topic about loving strawberries, you might have 30 people arguing about how strawberry seeds suck, and 3 people arguing about how the color is offputting.

Both are about loving strawberries. Say post #3, #25, #38, and #67 are an argument about the color, but are mostly replying about the seeds (since you’re encouraged to embed multiple responses in a single reply) and so they don’t have a direct reply chain to only the color-argument rsponses. So when I come in a week later and read post #80 where someone vehemently disagrees with post #38 in another aside, if they didn’t have some nested quotes with that argument then it will be a pain in the ass to either hunt through the topic, or search keywords and hope they all used the same words so I can find the posts to figure out why they’re so worked up.


(Mittineague) #10

To continue the off-topic discussion, in our forum we display post numbers so members can say something like

please reread post #12, your best answer is there

Maybe that would work for you?


#11

So much work for the reader to hunt down information and the poster to try to include enough information for the reader to know what is happening, all to get around the inability to simply quote-reply chain like in every forum ever.


(Jeff Atwood) #12

Write once, read many. The burden should be on the writer, not the reader.

Just like code.


#13

Which is exactly our point… just that you came to the exact opposite conclusion about making it easier for the writer to discourse.

But, as you said above (and I won’t bother to go hunting it down, because I know how much you loathe quote chains, so I will paraphrase instead) Discourse should make it actively difficult for the writer to discourse in order to save the reader from possibly seeing something ugly.


(Jeff Atwood) #14

Not quite.

Discourse teaches you to be a better writer by carrying just the necessary context to effectively communicate.

Not too much context (quoting entire posts, 3 level deep Inception quoting, quoting a video, quoting an image), not too little (zero quoting) – but just right.

This is IMHO a strength of flat discussions in general.


(se oli tonnin seteli) #16

Had to resurrect an oldish topic;

I’ve given some thought on this recently and I’d say it would help to be able to display the image on at least two levels of quotes so that it is apparent what two people who are not OP are discussing.

I frequent a technical forum where things, more often than not, simply can not be put to words as effectively as using an image. From broken welds to bearing adjustment or replacement, a picture will help more than discussing out of discussion’s sake.

I do also understand codinghorror’s angle on this, so maybe it would be helpful, where this sort of functionality is helpful, to be able not to restrict, or, ideally, set the maximum level of embedded quotes? On levels beyond said threshold, the image could be replaced with “expand image” -link or something?

Any further thoughts?


(Jeff Atwood) #17

This already works – click the bar where it says “tonninseteli” above.


(se oli tonnin seteli) #18

Oh I know this, but the last time I checked, the image link somehow got broken into plaintext incl. tags. I assume this is fixed then?


(Jeff Atwood) #19

I added an image to your post — you tell me what happens when I quote your post and you click on the word “tonninseteli” to expand it:

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

* but actually clicking any part of the top bar will work


(se oli tonnin seteli) #20

Cool, cool. I’ll play around with this asap to see if I still have any problems and can provide additional details :slight_smile: Thanks.


(se oli tonnin seteli) #21

This is weird. I was able to replicate this with firefox and chrome when using Reply-button:

Result above.


(Mittineague) #22

Are you confusing the collapsed with the expanded views?