Quote Depth?

[mjr]

Edit to add: The experiment shows that (precisely as the code comments suggests) if the quote depth exceeds this setting, the (earliest) extra quotes are removed. This happens even when the depth is increased manually so reducing this setting would not allow the user to "quote additional posts to give further history in the rare cases it's useful" - they would be (are) removed.

Again, that's incorrect. They would still be able to quote them individually. They just couldn't nest them into each other and make the deep canoes seen on this site at present. Please test it before making incorrect claims with such certainty, especially after suggesting I hadn't.

[AlaninWales]

Edit to add: The experiment shows that (precisely as the code comments suggests) if the quote depth exceeds this setting, the (earliest) extra quotes are removed. This happens even when the depth is increased manually so reducing this setting would not allow the user to "quote additional posts to give further history in the rare cases it's useful" - they would be (are) removed.

Again, that's incorrect. They would still be able to quote them individually. They just couldn't nest them into each other and make the deep canoes seen on this site at present. Please test it before making incorrect claims with such certainty, especially after suggesting I hadn't.

Of course they can quote separately (thus losing the relationship of quotes). The option is labelled "Maximum nesting depth for quotes:" because that is precisely what it is!

[thirdcrank]

Sometimes, ... replies to a reply deny the sense of the original post, ...

As I've tried to point out above, there are two ways of dealing with a feeling of having been misunderstood/ misrepresented whatever. One is to give some clarification of what was meant, with an apology if appropriate and the other is to start a "where did I say that?" exchange, which apart from anything else, is probably the quickest way to get into a shower of nested quotes. It's obviously only my personal impression but it does tend to be a small number of "usual suspects."

[Psamathe]

Personally, the way nested quotes are formatted makes it pretty easy to "read back" to put the post in context and ignore deeper nesting where not relevant. So limiting the depth would probably more often result in quotes that have no context (as the quoted post needs the post that it was responding to, etc.). I think the current limits provide a good balance.

Ian

[mjr]

Personally, the way nested quotes are formatted makes it pretty easy to "read back" to put the post in context and ignore deeper nesting where not relevant […] I think the current limits provide a good balance.

Do you really find pages full of repeats like viewtopic.php?f=15&t=108977&start=5430 easy to read? I really feel the balance has gone too far towards extreme context and away from readability, ease of use and self-contained points.

[Psamathe]

Personally, the way nested quotes are formatted makes it pretty easy to "read back" to put the post in context and ignore deeper nesting where not relevant […] I think the current limits provide a good balance.

Do you really find pages full of repeats like viewtopic.php?f=15&t=108977&start=5430 easy to read? I really feel the balance has gone too far towards extreme context and away from readability, ease of use and self-contained points.

Yes. Because you read "back-up" through the quotes (the nested formatting makes it very easy to "read back" to the point you want to to get the context).

In fact this post is a good example. Just having

Do you really find pages full of repeats like viewtopic.php?f=15&t=108977&start=5430 easy to read? I really feel the balance has gone too far towards extreme context and away from readability, ease of use and self-contained points.

would be ambiguous as to who you might be responding to and what point they were making. It's only when you get the full

Personally, the way nested quotes are formatted makes it pretty easy to "read back" to put the post in context and ignore deeper nesting where not relevant […] I think the current limits provide a good balance.

Do you really find pages full of repeats like viewtopic.php?f=15&t=108977&start=5430 easy to read? I really feel the balance has gone too far towards extreme context and away from readability, ease of use and self-contained points.

that the proper context is there.

Ian

[mjr]

Well, I find the previous post bitty and hard to read, with too much repetition and not standing alone, as well as hard to reply to from a mobile.

[Psamathe]

Well, I find the previous post bitty and hard to read, with too much repetition and not standing alone, as well as hard to reply to from a mobile.

Probably as I messed around with the quotes, re-quoting with different nesting depths to illustrate my point.

I think mobiles are a separate issue. Not sure what the current skins are but when I last tried this forum on a mobile it was "not great". On other phpBB forums I found a skin/style that worked a bit better on a mobile but setting it switched for both mobile and larger screen. I wonder if mobile layout should be sorted out as a higher priority than quote nesting (but I have no idea if phpBB has anything on offer for mobile/larger screen switching)

Ian

[Graham]

So, let me ask everyone: why don't you trim what you quote to just what you discuss?

I often do, but refrain from doing so when I believe it would lessen the sense (e.g. lead to people having to page backwards too much, to see how the conversation developed). Sometimes (as I am sure you have noticed) replies to a reply deny the sense of the original post, so having it available without paging can be useful.
Despite my care to preserve context, I have occasionally been called on having quoted out of context, because I have shortened the original post to what seems to be to be a separate point relevant to my reply.

I have just changed that parameter down to 2 ( from 3 ).

[Graham]

I often do, but refrain from doing so when I believe it would lessen the sense (e.g. lead to people having to page backwards too much, to see how the conversation developed). Sometimes (as I am sure you have noticed) replies to a reply deny the sense of the original post, so having it available without paging can be useful.
Despite my care to preserve context, I have occasionally been called on having quoted out of context, because I have shortened the original post to what seems to be to be a separate point relevant to my reply.

I have just changed that parameter down to 2 ( from 3 ).

I do spend a bit too much time editing out completely wasteful quotations.

Thanks to MJR for revealing yet another facility that I had no idea existed.

[Psamathe]

I have just changed that parameter down to 2 ( from 3 ).

Based on your personal opinion or the results of the poll (which if anything suggest an increase!). I can't see any consensus for a reduction.

Ian

[RickH]

In a long, multiple page topic a longer/complete quote can be useful to see the context without having to find the original post that may several pages back in a fast moving topic.

What annoys me more personally is where people quote the entirety of someone else's post but don't appear to add anything of their own!

Some folk address individual point by using bold or coloured text within the quote which is OK. But, where it is all but impossible to discern if they have added anything of their own I try to just roll my eyes sigh & move on.

[mjr]

Based on your personal opinion or the results of the poll (which if anything suggest an increase!). I can't see any consensus for a reduction.

Based on reducing the workload of the volunteer moderators. Not my reason but it's an understandable one.

My poll is only advisory, of course... I also don't see how the current standings (5 for 1, 3 for the current setting and 2 for unlimited) can be interpreted as suggesting an increase.

[Psamathe]

Based on your personal opinion or the results of the poll (which if anything suggest an increase!). I can't see any consensus for a reduction.

Based on reducing the workload of the volunteer moderators. Not my reason but it's an understandable one.

My poll is only advisory, of course... I also don't see how the current standings (5 for 1, 3 for the current setting and 2 for unlimited) can be interpreted as suggesting an increase.

I said "I can't see any consensus for a reduction" not suggesting an increase. 6 for reduction, 5 for same or unlimited is not a consensus for change. Another reduction in functionality making things in debate harder to follow - but seems the way things are going these days, lower functionality. Is this really going to make things clearer (5 say no, 6 say yes!)?

Edit: Sorry, the above quote makes no sense because it is actually originally responding to anoher post that the system has now automatically edited out - illustrating how nested quotes are useful in making sense without having to scan bace through a thread. The post trail eas initailly repsponding to:

Based on your personal opinion or the results of the poll (which if anything suggest an increase!). I can't see any consensus for a reduction.

Ian

But even tht'a been "auto truncated by the looks of it!" so it still makes no contextual sense and I can't be a $%^&ed to keep editing to fight the new system that ..... If people don't want to use something then don't use it but to stop others who do .. way of the world these days.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Based on your personal opinion or the results of the poll (which if anything suggest an increase!). I can't see any consensus for a reduction.

Based on reducing the workload of the volunteer moderators. Not my reason but it's an understandable one.

My poll is only advisory, of course... I also don't see how the current standings (5 for 1, 3 for the current setting and 2 for unlimited) can be interpreted as suggesting an increase.

Moderators have been moaning about that increased workload for ages!

If you don't like it or understand it, don't use it but to stop anybody else using it is just selfish.

Ian