# Threaded discussion is ultimately too complex to survive on the public Internet?

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/threaded-discussion-is-ultimately-too-complex-to-survive-on-the-public-internet/63172>\
**Category:** UX\
**Created:** [2017年五月23日 02:43 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/threaded-discussion-is-ultimately-too-complex-to-survive-on-the-public-internet/63172 "2017-05-23T02:43:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 67

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![roke\_julian\_lockhart](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/roke_julian_lockhart/32/540179_2.png) [@roke\_julian\_lockhart](https://meta.discourse.org/u/roke_julian_lockhart)\
**Post date:** [2024年四月17日 12:28 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/threaded-discussion-is-ultimately-too-complex-to-survive-on-the-public-internet/63172/67 "2024-04-17T12:28:49Z")

</div>

@Sailsman63,

> [@Sailsman63](#):
>
> As we exchange thoughts, we are affected both consciously and unconsciously by _all_ of the individual comments, even if we are not directly replying to them. Our understanding shifts, we have new information or viewpoints to integrate.

I can confidently state that I am unaffected by text which I see whilst scrolling but do not read. To purport otherwise is nonsensical - if the brain does not deliberately comprehend and then commit observed text to memory, it is not stored and consequently unable to affect the reader. Billboards which you pass on the highway but do not read do not affect you.

* * *

For me, as long as a discussion about a topic is logically segmented, whether it is arbitrarily designated as a “topic” or “response” has no effect upon me. Think of a filesystem - it is a simple hierarchy of objects, and yet entirely comprehensible and traversable:

> ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/4X/2/1/b/21b9d8b51d64bbba9b0c1ce16b6108a942ee2be3.png)   
> A hierarchical conversation should not differ (except that each comment is more frequently multi-line).

Regardless, that’s a rather unsubstantiated opinion, even considering what supposed evidence that you’ve provided:

> [@Sailsman63](#):
>
> It is fundamentally _false_ to think of a string of direct replies as _independent of_ the rest of the discussion:
> 
> > ****
> >
> > If you were to read only that reply string, without the context of intervening posts, It really does sound nonsensical and disjointed - as well as possibly coming across as more acrimonious than I intended.
> 
> If a set of replies is truly so divorced from the flow of the rest of the discussion that it benefits from being viewed in isolation, it’s an excellent candidate for being broken out into its own top-level topic.

The example (if I’m correctly identifying the example as the `<details>`-encompassed section) which you’ve provided doesn’t appear to demonstrate that. However, I understand what you mean, because it’s quite simple to consider a situation in which a threaded response contextually depends upon what it responds to.

However, why do you state this? I ask because all that it appears to demonstrate is that some threads _should not_ be separated into new topics, irrespective of their relevance to the original topic.

* * *

> [@Sailsman63](#):
>
> Appropriately enough, it was this exact process - watching the discussion as it unfolded, including the parts that I didn’t directly respond to, and thinking about why I act as I do - that has allowed me to articulate and refine on what had previously been a strong visceral reaction. A threaded model would have deprived me of this experience.

I’ve no idea of what you mean by this. It’s too vague.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/threaded-discussion-is-ultimately-too-complex-to-survive-on-the-public-internet/63172)._