I’m not following - could you expand a bit?
I explained as best I could in my post above about when you are replying to a reply, depending on which function was used, the original name of the wine is no longer in the posts.
testing replying (edit, it works for me - I clicked ‘reply’ on your post, it showed your name there, then when I click it it expands all the threaded replies, as it should - guess I’m still unsure what the issue is - if I click ‘reply’ at the bottom of the thread, this one
Rather than ‘reply’ from a specific post - whether it is a reply of a reply of a reply or not), this one:
It does the nesting and indications as it should.)
1 Like
Just curious if you made this reply from my post, or from the Reply at the bottom of the thread?
Exactly the point I just made as well - the ‘reply’ with end of thread is very close to the last post’s ‘reply’, I’m thinking individuals are clicking the former thinking they hit the latter
I hit the one in your post. My understanding is that it would not attach a link because it was the last post. That is not what I am talking about.
If you click the reply from the post, it will attribute the referral, showing the thread/posts, I haven’t seen otherwise yet, just did four tests of this
I think that confusion, where it exists, has now been adequately answered and addressed.
Yes, Todd. The difference is clear. That’s not at all what I’m talking about.
I think the bigger issue might be on mobile browsers, the reply button is much larger and more obvious than just the simple arrow within a post and likely users are clicking, the more obvious one as a reply
Ok, so please tell me what you are referring to - as I said above, I don’t understand.
1 Like
It’s when there are replies to replies, and the attribution link/button is not carried down the chain. So person 1 responds to person 0, and an attribution appears. Person 2 responds to person 1, using the in-post button and even quoting person 1. But the attribution to person 0 is gone. So person 3, reading person two’s post will have to scan up the thread to find the original wine being discussed. If there have been many posts in between, it can take a bit.
But is it?
The above is a quick attempt to illustrate what Sarah is explaning, assuming I’m following correctly. No one can see in my post what it is you were referring to when you quoted Alan because I only quoted you. So we see you saying “I just said that” but we don’t see what that is referring to.
That said, when I click the little Todd icon in my post to show the post to which I’m replying, it does show your full post, including the text you quoted from Alan.
I actually think you can see everything, just need to expand the chain, either through the curly arrow, or the little down carrot caret that expands the embedded post.
If I understand Sarah’s point (and I’m not positive I do), this isn’t the case when a post replying to someone follows that post directly, i.e., no intervening posts by anyone else.
I hadn’t noticed that before, but yes that also displays everything in addition to clicking the Icon of the poster to whom I’m replying as I noted above.
Got it. Yes, that makes sense (sorry for being a bit slow). It would be nice if that could be fixed in an update.
How did you get the “little down caret” snippet to be highlighted?
Correct, as intended. It shows you replying to me, with a quote, then, if one wishes to see the entire tree of quotes, since it is a string of multiple replies, simply click the avatar, and the entire thread shows:
This is my favorite thing in the new software and it can really help avoid those huge posts we used to get on the old system when someone did a quote-reply to a really long post.
Just highlight the snippet you want and a little “quote” button should appear like this:
Click on the quote button, and Bob’s your uncle. Also great for quoting and replying to multiple posts in one reply.
2 Likes