h a l f b a k e r yI think this would be a great thing to not do.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
See? That would mean somebody's working on the first post. |
|
| |
I dunno, [doc]. I'm imagining lots of polka-dot posts, left
behind by 'bakers who forgot to go back. |
|
| |
Churchill is said to have coined the word Queuetopia in 1950. |
|
| |
that Winston, he cracks me up |
|
| |
I do like this better than my "[placeholder - editing]" version,
though without the animation, it could be interpreted as
indicating the opinion that the discussion is getting tedious.
But, if "…" gets popular enough, it might get added to the help
file. |
|
| |
// I dunno, [doc]. I'm imagining lots of polka-dot posts, left
behind by 'bakers who forgot to go back. // |
|
| |
The idea owner can delete them after a while if they seem
abandoned. |
|
| |
I've just realized a small issue with this: I don't think editing an annotation
counts toward the recency of last update of the idea it's on. If I'm right about
that, when you say "…", then the idea will be bumped to the top of people's
recent views, and people will click on it and find nothing new to read. When
you finish editing and click OK, it won't be bumped, and nobody will be notified
that you edited in some content. So you have to rely on people remembering to
refresh/come back after a while to read your annotation, or other people
annotating after you've edited yours—not just after you've placeheld it—to
bump the idea again. |
|
| |
Also, when I come back to an idea whose annotations I've read because it was
bumped, I look for the most recent annotation I've read and continue reading
from there, so I might miss content that was edited in above that point. But if
I'd previously seen annotations that said "…", I'd probably remember to look for
them being filled in on subsequent visits to the idea. |
|
| |
Despite drawbacks, the main thing this helps with is later
reading of the chain. Right now if you come back years
later it's like a cocktail party, random conversations
popping in and out of the progression of the posts so
scrambled they decay into un-readability after the
conversations have ended. |
|
| |
Wonder if it would add some clarity to leave the dots in
and just put the annotation after it so people know this
was place held at one point. |
|
| |
If you really wanted to go crazy you could put a GMT
stamp on the end of the posts. (Don't put a GMT stamp on
the end of your posts.) |
|
| |
Anyway, I guess the main point is to preemptively de-
scramble the conversation so it will be easier to read
later on and get rid of that cacophony of conversations
feel. |
|
| |
Will this really help much if there is more than one
ongoing conversation? After a person writes "..." but
before they update it, there could be more posts (the
whole reason for this idea), so if there is a response
needed to this one, it will be separated unless the first
person preemptively adds a "..." as soon as they see the
first "..." |
|
| |
So this idea could improve the flow of annotations slightly
by grouping a conversation in pairs of two, but I'm not
sure that's worth the confusion it could cause. |
|
| |
Well, it's available now. Whether or not it ever gets
used remains to be seen. I might try it if the occasion
arises. |
|
| |
I still think it would be easier to have annotations numbered
consecutively, permanently and automatically at the time of
writing. The "..." thing only works in those rare cases where
you know you will want to comment but don't have the
necessary time or information; it doesn't help you if you come
to a thread late, and want to comment on an annotation
made a while back. Numbering would meet both needs: |
|
| |
"Re {5}, why not simply charge the hamster to a high negative
potential?" |
|
| |
Re: ellipsis name change. Caterpillar? Because if moves like a
caterpillar sort of? |
|
| |
What about using Three Seashells ... ? |
|
| |
I don't like this but not enough for [-]. This means you can't amplify . |
|
| |
What happens if you don't type anything and just post it? |
|
| |
Could you not just drill a hole in the screen and push in one of those pins with a red dot on the end of it? |
|
| |