Yes, no and maybe. Internally, the schema supports them. (Indeed, main conversation posts are largely the same objects as responses internally.) So far, the UI doesn't expose them, but that may well change. I'm still messing around with that, to see what seems to be useful.
The feature I most craved then (and still would like now for mailing lists) is the option to use points.
Hmm. That's damned interesting, and quite powerful; on the downside, it's so complex that I doubt that most users would go near it, and it's potentially expensive to compute. It's worth chewing on, though -- not just for the mechanism itself but for the *approach* it implies about conversations.
There's a general issue here that I'm still wrestling with: how much is a conversation a clear collective object, and how much is it really just a bunch of individual atoms that should be treated separately. LJ is off at the first extreme (that is, the comments have little existence outside of the main topic); Twitter is off at the other (insofar as there is a "conversation", it is really just a loose convention defined by the participants).
So far, CommYou is sort of squishily in the middle -- which, to be fair, is rather the same as Usenet was. I do (so far) have a concept that messages belong to specific conversations, but I'm not wholly wedded to that, and some of the stories (such as killfiles) imply a different attitude. So we'll see where this winds up going.
but as soon as you provide hooks, some subset of your users will want to use them in expressions. (I'm still frustrated that LJ doesn't give me the ability to write a boolean expression for looking up tagged entries, for instance.)
Oh, absolutely. Indeed, I am explicitly not introducing tagging until there are ways to *use* tags, for exactly this reason -- I find LJ's tags downright irritating precisely because I can't use them for filtering. (And I agree that features without use cases are a bad idea.)
I've been tending to think in somewhat simpler terms -- more binary logic than weightings. But the broad concept is certainly intended to go in...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: part 1
Date: 2008-07-04 03:53 pm (UTC)Yes, no and maybe. Internally, the schema supports them. (Indeed, main conversation posts are largely the same objects as responses internally.) So far, the UI doesn't expose them, but that may well change. I'm still messing around with that, to see what seems to be useful.
The feature I most craved then (and still would like now for mailing lists) is the option to use points.
Hmm. That's damned interesting, and quite powerful; on the downside, it's so complex that I doubt that most users would go near it, and it's potentially expensive to compute. It's worth chewing on, though -- not just for the mechanism itself but for the *approach* it implies about conversations.
There's a general issue here that I'm still wrestling with: how much is a conversation a clear collective object, and how much is it really just a bunch of individual atoms that should be treated separately. LJ is off at the first extreme (that is, the comments have little existence outside of the main topic); Twitter is off at the other (insofar as there is a "conversation", it is really just a loose convention defined by the participants).
So far, CommYou is sort of squishily in the middle -- which, to be fair, is rather the same as Usenet was. I do (so far) have a concept that messages belong to specific conversations, but I'm not wholly wedded to that, and some of the stories (such as killfiles) imply a different attitude. So we'll see where this winds up going.
but as soon as you provide hooks, some subset of your users will want to use them in expressions. (I'm still frustrated that LJ doesn't give me the ability to write a boolean expression for looking up tagged entries, for instance.)
Oh, absolutely. Indeed, I am explicitly not introducing tagging until there are ways to *use* tags, for exactly this reason -- I find LJ's tags downright irritating precisely because I can't use them for filtering. (And I agree that features without use cases are a bad idea.)
I've been tending to think in somewhat simpler terms -- more binary logic than weightings. But the broad concept is certainly intended to go in...