h a l f b a k e r yWhy on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?
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,
|
|
|
I think it would help to have newsgroup-style threaded annotations. As it stands, the single list doesn't help the flow of ideas. A response to a critique might come three annotations later. With long discussions, it's hard to keep track of different conversations.
Besides, it would violate a patent
http://patft.uspto....747&RS=PN/6,525,747
Yup, Bezos has patented threaded discussions. [bristolz, Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Busy start! Think of them as time-lapse word-maps. |
|
| |
I much-prefer the current layout; with the whole thread on one page, I can read everything without clicking three-dozen times and get lost in a zillion sub-threads. |
|
| |
Besides, it is exactly the 'thread-whiplash' which keeps the place interesting. |
|
| |
FYI: I've been a lurker for over a year before I began my posting spree. I think I have a pretty good feel for the place, and I'll tell you, it's a mess. |
|
| |
IM is for chatting; threads are for discussion. |
|
| |
Right now the interface works well if you want to squirt off some silly, interesting idea that you thought of at work today. |
|
| |
If you are serious about an organized, critical dialogue about an idea, threading is necessary. Scrolling through 80 screen lengths of annotations does not aid someone trying to understand an idea, its weak points, and new ideas created in response. |
|
| |
I think it comes down to what a person is familiar with. I like this format a lot and certainly don't consider it a mess but, then, I am very used to it. In fact, I have the opposite view: I think threaded discussions are a mess with the worst being something like slashdot. |
|
| |
Er lawpoop, I come from a place where the telephone lines run through swamps etc... |
|
| |
One click will bring up everything, no clicking and waiting for the page to reload everytime. I hate hate hate sites where I read two or three lines and then have to wait for the next entry(slow connection). |
|
| |
The halfbakery has evolved into it's current state and is (almost) perfect. |
|
| |
in this world there are 3 things that are perfect that begin with a c and one thing that is perfect that begins with an h. |
|
| |
sorry but your year-long lurking didn't involve much reading. |
|
| |
//If you are serious about an organized, critical dialogue about an idea, threading is necessary.//
Serious? Us? hahahahaha - it's Happy Hour 24 hours a day in this accidental community, dude.
Just as in any gathering, conversation, exhange, dialogue - whatever - there's tangents, inside jokes and overheard voices (which might make no sense until they reach fruition) which aren't just noise, but part of the dialogue, and what gives the 'bakery such a charge. Intellectual stimulation can't just be sorted all out for us, it needs to be sorted by ourselves. Otherwise, there's no stimulation, dig?
Scrolling through 80 screen lengths of annotations does not aid someone trying to understand an idea, its weak points, and new ideas created in response.
80 screen lengths of annotations are few and far between, as Vernon takes a while. |
|
| |
[lawpoop], I'm sorry to learn you don't like to "squirt"
when you bite into custard filled pastries... |
|
| |
The halfbakery is a one-of-its-kind medium for expressive
intellectualism. It is every bit an art, a place of sport, a
journey. |
|
| |
Come on [po] you know that you can't leave it like that!
I figure the first is Cat, right? |
|
| |
I got it - 2 more Cats and a Hullaballoon. |
|
| |
you shouldn't have followed my thread, I have told you about that before :) |
|
| |
// I think I have a pretty good feel for the place, and I'll tell you, it's a mess. // |
|
| |
Obviously not. It works beautifully. If you think it's a mess, go start your own. |
|
| |
Applause, rave. Excellently done. Plus you got a Gilbert Gottfried thing going on in parts. |
|
| |
Well, I doubt it can be stated much better than that, [ravenswood]. |
|
| |
besides, I really don't like pigeon poop. |
|
| |
okay i'm pretty new here too and i think the format beats the pants off threading (esp trying to read dejanews in browser and having to load a page every ten posts, 100 lines, etc. etc). |
|
| |
however, my question is if i see an great idea nearly full-formed or just inspired by another baker's idea, do i bring it out in the thread or post it new and give credit to the inspiree? |
|
| |
i ask because RAVENSWOOD makes me thinks a threaded discussion in which you can tie threads together again would be useful, either in a single thread or in a grouped 'rope'. |
|
| |
Having seen similar things happen [grip] I would suggest that if you can 'pick up the ball and run with it'
i.e develop the idea fully yourself then there is no reason why you shouldn't post it with a nod (or link) to the source of inspiration. |
|
| |
In regards to what ravenswood said in response to the author, while in agreement with 'Bubba and Steele: That's what I said. |
|
| |
Hey, what? I can't follow this. |
|
| |