Should the newest post be the first or the last post in a thread?

[Joe Blow]

Okay, I have become aware that there are those who prefer the most recent post in a thread to be the first.

As someone who has spent a lot of time on internet forums I'll admit I find this a bit of an odd concept. To me, a thread begins with the first post and ends with the most recent post. I guess it's what I'm used to. I like to see a thread in context and find it's easier to follow if it moves forward in time rather than backwards. I like to see the development of a discussion.

One argument against this 'linear' style of thread is that it's 'harder' to get to the most recent post. I can see how this might be true if you had to manually flick through the pages to get to the last one but it is actually quite easy to get to the most recent post in any thread. By clicking on the '

' button in the 'Last Post' section of the forum/thread info, you will go directly to the last post of the thread. I am sure many of you were aware of this already but there must be many who aren't. Also, at any point in the thread you can click on 'Last' instead of a specific page number to move to the last page of the thread.

So which style do you prefer? It's not difficult to change so I thought I'd start a poll and see how everyone feels. Should we keep things as they are or make it so that threads start with the most recent post?

I'd be interested to hear your views!

 

[doctorj]

The newest post should be at the end of the thread.

If you were to have it the other way around, it would be more difficult for people wanting to read through the history of the thread to move FORWARD a page and then read from the bottom up. It's counter-intuitive and not conducive for the participation of trading types that lack computer skills.

Having the newest posts at the end better demonstrates the progression of time and arguement.

 

[RichKid]

By clicking on the > '

' button in the 'Last Post' section of the forum/thread info, you will go directly to the last post of the thread. I am sure many of you were aware of this already but there must be many who aren't.

I too found it frustrating but then I realised what that ' > ' button was for!! All so much easier now, and as Doc J mentions it's more logical to go the current way with the first post on page one of a thread. Just a matter of getting used to the buttons and shortcuts. Happy for it to be the way it is.

 

[DTM]

I'm happy for it to stay the way it is. It's much more simple and easier to understand at the moment.

 

[dutchie]

Hi Joe

I prefer it to be as is. It is only slightly more difficult to get to most recent post but a lot easier to read through progress of a thread

Alternative of having to read backwards is very annoying.

Congratulations on the growth of ASF!

 

[GreatPig]

Of the two options, I prefer it the way it is too.

Of course, in the good ol' days they had real forums with thread trees, linked messages, read-message tracking, and off-line readers.

But as they say, all good things must come to an end...

Cheers,
GP

 

[Joe Blow]

Of course, in the good ol' days they had real forums with thread trees, linked messages, read-message tracking, and off-line readers.

But as they say, all good things must come to an end...

What forum software are you referring to GP?

 

[ghotib]

I find newest post first more natural, but I don't have any problems with this format because you can get to the end of a thread with one click.

Like GP I miss branching discussions, but I don't know of any Web forum software that provides them PLUS all the nice features we have here.

I spend a lot of time on a forum that's hosted by Network54, and that does support branching. If you want to check it out, it's the New Forum for Classical Singers (I never said you'd find it interesting); you might have to agree to some conditions before you can actually see the forums but I haven't noticed any ill effects from that. www.nfcs.net./forumindexframe.html Main and Off Topic tend to have the longest and most complicated threads.

Overall this is much more pleasant to use, IMO, and I'm not fussed about sequence of messages.

 

[GreatPig]

What forum software are you referring to GP?

CompuServe.

But even they've changed to a lower Web form of life now.

They do still have linked replies and read-message tracking though, and are reportedly working on a thread tree display.

However, off-line readers look like a thing of the past, much to the disgust of many regulars. While such a thing would be quite possible to develop for a Web forum (IMO), it would really require the cooperation of the Web server software, which many forum operators would probably prefer not to happen since the reader would omit all the advertising (you had to be a paying member to use an off-line reader on CompuServe - in fact, before Web access was incorporated, you had to be a paying member to access it at all).

When one CompuServe forum started operating another Web forum a couple of years ago, one that also incorporated threaded replies and high message number tracking of read messages, I started writing an offline reader for it using HTTP access. Had it basically working quite well (as a proof of concept), but since it had to act like a Web browser and traverse hyperlinks to get to the messages, it was very prone to being broken when the forum designer changed the layout of the Web pages - which he was doing a lot in the early days.

I've attached a couple of screen-shots of the software (with members' real names blacked out - each name being of the person who posted that particular message). I had to crop off the right-hand side of the second one due to this forum's limit on image size (in pixels). There was still a lot of work to do on the program to make it a distributable product, but I could see that with time and effort it would be do-able.

Cheers,
GP

 

[Joe Blow]

CompuServe.

But even they've changed to a lower Web form of life now.

They do still have linked replies and read-message tracking though, and are reportedly working on a thread tree display.

However, off-line readers look like a thing of the past, much to the disgust of many regulars. While such a thing would be quite possible to develop for a Web forum (IMO), it would really require the cooperation of the Web server software, which many forum operators would probably prefer not to happen since the reader would omit all the advertising (you had to be a paying member to use an off-line reader on CompuServe - in fact, before Web access was incorporated, you had to be a paying member to access it at all).

When one CompuServe forum started operating another Web forum a couple of years ago, one that also incorporated threaded replies and high message number tracking of read messages, I started writing an offline reader for it using HTTP access. Had it basically working quite well (as a proof of concept), but since it had to act like a Web browser and traverse hyperlinks to get to the messages, it was very prone to being broken when the forum designer changed the layout of the Web pages - which he was doing a lot in the early days.

I've attached a couple of screen-shots of the software (with members' real names blacked out - each name being of the person who posted that particular message). I had to crop off the right-hand side of the second one due to this forum's limit on image size (in pixels). There was still a lot of work to do on the program to make it a distributable product, but I could see that with time and effort it would be do-able.

Cheers,
GP

Interesting looking forum, GP. I've been a regular poster on a few forums but have never been a regular on one with thread trees like that. Most of the ones I've posted on have been vBulletin (this software), which I have developed a great fondness for, especially now that I have seen it from the webmaster/adminstrator side as well. I find it very intuitive and filled with lots of useful features.

It's funny how what we are comfortable with is simply what we have grown accustomed to. We are definitely creatures of habit.

Looking at the results of the poll, I'm heartened by the fact that people are voting to keep things the way they are. I like threads that start at the beginning and finish at the end. I know there's another stockmarket forum that some people here visit that does it the other way... but I find it strange coming into a discussion at the end. There's no context.

Anyway, I'm babbling.

Cheers!
Joe

 

[Smurf1976]

It's fine the way it is. Simple, logical, easy to understand and to use.

 

[GreatPig]

Interesting looking forum, GP

That's not what the forum looks like. That's what the software I started to develop looked like. The forum looked similar to this one when viewed with a Web browser (although it wasn't vBulletin). However, they support linked replies, where you can reply to individual messages rather than the thread as a whole, and there's a link between the parent message and the replies, tying them together. That means a thread develops as a tree structure, as shown by my software, but on their Website it looks linear just like this (the old CompuServe Web interface also displayed a thread tree to one side).

The other thing they have is read-message tracking. Each message has a number and the forum software tracks which messages have been read by each member (typically with a tree display you only view one message at a time, as there is no linear list). The next time you visit the forum it only displays messages you haven't read yet, unless you specifically want to look at older messages.

Off-line readers developed for CompuServe before it was ever Web-based (it was hosted on mainframes in Ohio using proprietary protocols). You had to be a member and access their nodes by dialling in, where you got charged by the minute for access time. The shorter the time you stayed connected, the cheaper it was (and it was pretty expensive back then, particularly in Australia). Off-line readers allowed you to set up access scripts to automatically dial in, collect all the new messages you specified as quickly as possible, and then hang up again. You could then read and reply to them at your leisure, finally running another script to automatically dial back in and post all your replies. That minimized connect time to the service, and thus costs. It also meant that all the messages were collected on your own computer, so you had a complete history of all threads you'd ever collected, and browsing through them was much quicker since everything was local on your PC. CompuServe also have file libraries, and the off-line readers had scripts to search the libraries for files or new uploads as well, and download initially summaries and then the complete files if you wanted them. On the down side (or many might say up side), they only supported text, so there were no graphics. Back then, when people were accessing with 2400-9600 baud modems, even downloading text could take a while.

Cheers,
GP

 

[doctorj]

I won't post it here as it's against the rules, but there is a small forum, similar to this one discussing Australian stocks that uses trees to sort posts as you describe.

 

[Joe Blow]

The other thing they have is read-message tracking. Each message has a number and the forum software tracks which messages have been read by each member (typically with a tree display you only view one message at a time, as there is no linear list). The next time you visit the forum it only displays messages you haven't read yet, unless you specifically want to look at older messages.

I don't use it because as the site administrator I have to at least browse through most threads but doesn't the 'New Posts' option in the navigation bar do pretty much the same thing?

 

[ghotib]

Off-line readers developed for CompuServe before it was ever Web-based (it was hosted on mainframes in Ohio using proprietary protocols). You had to be a member and access their nodes by dialling in, where you got charged by the minute for access time. The shorter the time you stayed connected, the cheaper it was (and it was pretty expensive back then, particularly in Australia). Off-line readers allowed you to set up access scripts to automatically dial in, collect all the new messages you specified as quickly as possible, and then hang up again. You could then read and reply to them at your leisure, finally running another script to automatically dial back in and post all your replies. That minimized connect time to the service, and thus costs. It also meant that all the messages were collected on your own computer, so you had a complete history of all threads you'd ever collected, and browsing through them was much quicker since everything was local on your PC. CompuServe also have file libraries, and the off-line readers had scripts to search the libraries for files or new uploads as well, and download initially summaries and then the complete files if you wanted them. On the down side (or many might say up side), they only supported text, so there were no graphics. Back then, when people were accessing with 2400-9600 baud modems, even downloading text could take a while.
GP

Oh the glory days of text and real emoticons that don't automagically turn into little coloured pictures.

I too spent a small... ish... fortune for Compuserve. However the famous offline reader was no help to me because I'd keep re-connecting to see if there was something new. The first phone bill nearly gave me heart attack.

Ghoti (grumpy but defiantly not old)

 

[Joe Blow]

Back then, when people were accessing with 2400-9600 baud modems, even downloading text could take a while.

Back in 1986 when I was a young whipper snapper I had a home made 300 baud modem hooked up to my C-64. I used to dial into local BBS's back then, although the software involved was much more primitive.

Of course, that was before the internet.

Even though I discovered the internet in 1995 I was kind of offline between 1997 and 2000, so I guess I missed the whole Compuserve thing.

 

[GreatPig]

doesn't the 'New Posts' option in the navigation bar do pretty much the same thing?

To be honest, I'd never noticed that option before.

However, looking at it now, it's only partly there. It limits the view to only threads with new posts, but within those threads you still see all the messages whether you've read them or not. The other forum (and CompuServe) will only show the new messages within a thread as well.

So if you hadn't looked at this thread again since you posted that last message, the next time you did you'd only see that post and the few after it (by default).

Cheers,
GP

 

[GreatPig]

I had a home made 300 baud modem hooked up to my C-64. I used to dial into local BBS's back then

I did that a little too, although a few years after that and using a PC with a new and racey 2400 baud modem!

I started using CompuServe in about 1994. It only opened to the Web a few years ago, and is now fully Web-based. It was a survival thing really, as people were dropping their memberships since there were more and more free Web-forums becoming available. Even now that it's fully Web-based and free (supported by advertising), I think membership numbers are considerably less than in its hey day. Still some good, active forums on there though - but US-centric in general.

Cheers,
GP

 

[canny]

I think the way you've got it is fine now that I've got used to it. Read the start - follow if interested, and then jump to "latest unread message"
Being not very computer literate, I've no idea about all the short cuts.

One thing I DO like from other forums is to be able to see a lot more of the recent posts and only open if interested. When I click on new posts here, it only brings up a few and I can't scroll through pages to catch up, whereas in a thread you CAN scroll through the pages.
There's probably something I'm missing and you'll no doubt let me know!! TIA!

 

[yada]

I realise I might be the only one with this viewpoint, but I do think that new posts should appear at the top of the thread. The reason is this.

Most people who read a thread regularly are already initiated with the past activity of the thread, therefore new messages should be at the top so we don't need to be presented with the old stuff by default.

For those that haven't read the thread, then they should be the ones who have to flick through to find the beginning.

thats my 2 cents

yada