Yes that’s right. And there is a way of getting there, I know, it just sometimes takes multiple clicks or a scan up. Again, I’m not saying it’s anything going wrong. But it’s different, and if you cannot see immediately the wine that people are talking about without clicking back through the various replies, it can be irritating.
1 Like
Ok, @Alan_Rath explain it to me, then, as I don’t see the issue. If someone replies to a post, the system tracks it properly. To state that the issue is that a post replying to someone who didn’t click ‘reply’ to a post, rather, the thread, doesn’t show, that’s a problem of the person who clicked reply ‘wrongly’, no? I don’t see a way a system update can change a post based on what the presumed intention of that person was? I’m so confused now.
I think this might answer your question, or so I hope
See the arrow? Once you expand the post from where the reply was originated, that arrow takes you TO the post itself, no matter how high up it was. If it was 100 posts higher, it takes you there. Is that a solution?
1 Like
I’m replying to Todd.
doesn’t show attribution…interesting, or doesn’t immediately, as I can see it in the space above, here
False.
When you use post reply and you are the immediate next post, you don’t get the arrow, etc.
This is what seems to be causing the issue under discussion. In this intance (and NOT in cases where it DOES show the arrow), then expanding the post does not track all the way back to the first post being replied to. So in those cases you don’t see what’s being discussed if that info is only in the first post in the sequence.
1 Like
See what happens when you expand this.
Edit - yes, this is the illustration you need. When you expand this post, you get my “I’m replying to Todd” post, but you don’t get Todd’s post to which I was replying - because my reply happened to be the very next post, even though I used “post reply.” So if I had said something like “I agree” or “I had the exact opposite experience with that wine”, simply expanding my post doesn’t show you what I’m agreeing with or what wine I’m talking about - you have to manually scroll up.
Edited again - no, you don’t have to manually scroll up. You still have to take a second step to go back up, but clicking the little up arrow you see in the upper right of the expanded post takes you back to my post, then you scroll up one to see what I was replying to:
It appears that if you are replying to the last post in the thread, there is no attribution, and I presume that’s because there is no need to show the person the post to which the reply was given as it is immediately prior to it. I replied to one post higher than the last on this one, and the attribution/link/preview shows. If I reply to the LAST post, it does not
Correct - the preview/attribution and subsequent arrow is meant to direct the person upthread as needed - if your reply was to the last post within a thread, the reply presumably refers to that post. It can be quoted (in full or partial) for clarity if the poster wants
Correct, and correct that it’s usually not needed because it flows like a converstation.
But where it is needed is in the examples discussed above, where someone comes along later and quotes the reply without the full context of the first post, and the attribution doesn’t track back to that first post.
1 Like
Testing @Dav3_Dyr0ff 's theory here, quoted a reply from earlier, then will check to see if one is able to go back to the OP from which I pulled the quote
I was able to - please show me what you mean, @Dav3_Dyr0ff - I clicked the attribution link, it opened the post I quoted and I was able to click the arrow to go up and read it in its original place
Sarah gets credit for the theory, I’ve just finally grokked it, that’s all.
No problem, we’ll call it the Kirschbaum Theory - I just don’t seem to be able to replicate it. I just tested it, it worked for me, so I’m again not fully understanding the issue, apparently
A favorite of mine as well. But that’s not what I’m talking about. In your post just above the Mash post, when you expand my post that you quoted, that phrase is highlighted with a grey background.
Having read this from the top again, I think Yaacov is correct; the software works as intended, as demonstrated by Todd, but in a counterintuitive manner that frustrates (some of) us because it doesn’t work the way we think it should.
Go back and read my post 109 now that I’ve edited it. That should have the full explanation. Yes, you are correct that the up arrow makes it easier to go back to the first reply (the one that didn’t include an attribution because it was the very next post), so you don’t have to “scroll and hunt”, but it still takes two extra steps compared to what it would if a “very next post” post-reply captured the attribution in the same way as later post-replies do.
Ah. I see that now, but I didn’t do anything special to make that happen. I just highlighted the snippet and used the quote button. I guess it automatically highlights the quoted snippet when you choose to expand the quoted post.
1 Like
Ha. I have to work now, but I quick looked for an exaple. See the Burgundy pricing thread, Stan Y and Greg K around post 614. If you look at Greg’s reply to Stan and Stan’s post, there’s no reference to the wine without clicking again to get to the one above Stan, Dennis, I think. Not best example, but you can see it. Again, you can get there, it’s just more involved.