Fullquotes, Reply buttons, in-reply-to markings

@Entropy512 There is no need for fullquotes. Just use the Reply button below the posting you want to reply to, and the forum software will automatically link your posting to the one you reply to.

Therefore, no need to completely quote the posting you are replying to.
Thanks for your understanding.

1 Like

Where's the threaded view option on these forums? I can't find it, and post-linking without quoting doesn't mix with flat view.

Click on the "in reply to" imagery and it expands the referenced post in line

1 Like

I see that for a grand total of one post in this entire thread, even though there are other posts which I KNOW are replies to others.)

Edit: Yup, I followed tmomas' instructions and - nope, no "in reply to" link shows.

image is not the same as image

Jeff - Correct. But, as evidenced by the fact that I quoted you and not the OP in the post tmomas yelled at me for, it's clear I used the reply button on your post. Had I used the "non-post-specific" reply button would have precluded me from being able to quote you.

I made a point in this post case of using the "reply" button on your post for this one, I suspect it will not show an "in reply to" post link.

Edit: Yup. No "in reply to" post link shown on my post.

Please reply to the posting shown in this screenshot by the Reply button encircled in blue:

Write "Just for testing" in the body of the posting.

Just for testing

(the only case where I see evidence of an in-reply-to link is where you used an @ mention in addition to replying)

Just for testing @tmomas

Yup. Parent post linking only works if using an @ mention

1 Like

Testing myself now.

You see... it works, even without @ mention.

Hmm... Is there possibly a non-default setting that's been turned on for your account?

(time to dig through my profile/preferences)

None that I know of.

Hmm... Are you using the "Condensed" or "Light" theme?

Edit: (nope, doesn't seem to be it)

Testing linking if replying to a "skipped" post.

OK, looks like one of the following has to occur for proper thread tracking to occur - either:

  1. An @ mention
  2. A reply is made to a post that is at some point early on in the thread

Since the threadtracking is inconsistent, this results in ambiguity if quoting is not used.

FYI - I moved this discussion out of the original topic.

Odd...on my screen I see all posts in the thread - in chronological order.

Quite easy to follow.

I'm not sure why some feel that the other posts in the the same thread are not relevant to the topic.

The concern is that, given that the threadtracking is inconsistent, without quoting, it becomes ambiguous whether a post is a reply to the OP or to the most recent post.

Test post using the "general" reply to button.

See - This post, which is linked to the OP using the "general" reply button (e.g. a "reply to OP") is indistinguishable from a "reply to immediately previous".

1 Like

Tested here...but if I reply to the last person, I don't see the mark referring to the previous post anyway.

Perhaps it seems obvious to me...hummm...after all, it's the same thread.

If "reply to OP" for a post that wasn't the first reply automatically triggered post-linking (making it clear whether or not a post is a reply to the OP or to the last poster - without a quote for context this is potentially ambiguous), it wouldn't be so bad.

Although honestly, implicit "well if you don't see a link, assume X, or maybe Y" is just horrible UI/UX design. If forum policy is to rely on post linking and not using quoting to ensure context, link relationships should ALWAYS be displayed.