Question about Modern View

(quoted from post at 18:34:39 04/30/15) When I respond to someone in Classic, I try to either quote them or address them by name so it's obvious to Modern View users who my response is to. But it's easy enough to forget this detail.

Click to expand...

(quoted from post at 07:41:01 04/30/15) If you use Modern View rather than Classic View, the postings are displayed in chronological order. How do you make sense of postings that come in out of chronological sequence in response to something someone other than the OP has said? Let's say A posts a question, and B, C, D, E, and F respond. The next day five more people respond and then X posts something disagreeing with what C said. In Modern View X's posting is now the most current, so it is at the top of the page. There's not a way to tell that it was intended to address something C said except to puzzle it out from the context. What if C had said, "That's a brilliant idea. I'm going to do that from now on," and tens posts later X reads what C has said and replies, "Me too". But X's response happens to occur right after K says to A, "That's a stupid idea. I think you're an idiot." Now, chronologically, it appears that X has agreed that A is an idiot rather than that A's idea is brilliant. In Classic view this is graphically clear. How do you work it out in Modern View?

Stan

Click to expand...

(quoted from post at 09:41:01 04/30/15) If you use Modern View rather than Classic View, the postings are displayed in chronological order. How do you make sense of postings that come in out of chronological sequence in response to something someone other than the OP has said? Let's say A posts a question, and B, C, D, E, and F respond. The next day five more people respond and then X posts something disagreeing with what C said. In Modern View X's posting is now the most current, so it is at the top of the page. There's not a way to tell that it was intended to address something C said except to puzzle it out from the context. What if C had said, "That's a brilliant idea. I'm going to do that from now on," and tens posts later X reads what C has said and replies, "Me too". But X's response happens to occur right after K says to A, "That's a stupid idea. I think you're an idiot." Now, chronologically, it appears that X has agreed that A is an idiot rather than that A's idea is brilliant. In Classic view this is graphically clear. How do you work it out in Modern View?

Stan

Click to expand...

(quoted from post at 10:52:19 05/01/15)

(quoted from post at 09:41:01 04/30/15) If you use Modern View rather than Classic View, the postings are displayed in chronological order. How do you make sense of postings that come in out of chronological sequence in response to something someone other than the OP has said? Let's say A posts a question, and B, C, D, E, and F respond. The next day five more people respond and then X posts something disagreeing with what C said. In Modern View X's posting is now the most current, so it is at the top of the page. There's not a way to tell that it was intended to address something C said except to puzzle it out from the context. What if C had said, "That's a brilliant idea. I'm going to do that from now on," and tens posts later X reads what C has said and replies, "Me too". But X's response happens to occur right after K says to A, "That's a stupid idea. I think you're an idiot." Now, chronologically, it appears that X has agreed that A is an idiot rather than that A's idea is brilliant. In Classic view this is graphically clear. How do you work it out in Modern View?

Stan

Click to expand...

As many others have said, either use the "quote" feature or else address your comments to the specific individual.

Another thing that occurs is when you reply in classic to 2 or 3 individuals in the same thread, then in modern that shows up as 3 posts in a row from the same guy.

All of this comes as a result of trying to run classic and modern views simultaneously, and as a result neither one works the way it should. If modern was the only one available a lot of these issues would be eliminated. A lot of us have figured that out. Unfortunately, the powers that be here do not seem inclined to want to do that. So we have to deal with things the way they are.

Click to expand...

(quoted from post at 14:34:39 04/30/15) When I respond to someone in Classic, I try to either quote them or address them by name so it's obvious to Modern View users who my response is to. But it's easy enough to forget this detail.

Click to expand...

(quoted from post at 12:41:01 04/30/15) If you use Modern View rather than Classic View, the postings are displayed in chronological order. How do you make sense of postings that come in out of chronological sequence in response to something someone other than the OP has said? Let's say A posts a question, and B, C, D, E, and F respond. The next day five more people respond and then X posts something disagreeing with what C said. In Modern View X's posting is now the most current, so it is at the top of the page. There's not a way to tell that it was intended to address something C said except to puzzle it out from the context. What if C had said, "That's a brilliant idea. I'm going to do that from now on," and tens posts later X reads what C has said and replies, "Me too". But X's response happens to occur right after K says to A, "That's a stupid idea. I think you're an idiot." Now, chronologically, it appears that X has agreed that A is an idiot rather than that A's idea is brilliant. In Classic view this is graphically clear. How do you work it out in Modern View?

Stan

Click to expand...