I am dissatisfied with the Waypoint quoting system. If there is only one brief open post to quote, it is all fine, but when the cart starts rolling and quotes within quotes within quotes get gradually enmassed, it becomes very unclear, diminishing the aesthetic value of using Waypoint. Quoting system should allow to respond to certain parts of the post we want to address, indicating by name whom we are quoting. Waypoint lacks the functionality to quote by name or to refer to a selected user without in particular recalling anything he said, that he got the quote mark in the profile bookmark. Editing the full quote to select out only what is of interest - if to undertake that hassle - is very unhandy on Waypoint as well, especially in lack of availability oftentimes to delete in-quotes of other authors.
> 2535469324078285;1:
> Quoting system should allow to respond to certain parts of the post we want to address, indicating by name whom we are quoting.
Idk what this “aesthetic value of using Waypoint” nonsense is but that’s not a thing.
As for this, it does. You just have to delete everything you don’t need. It’s really not hard.
If you click the code/source button on the right hand side of the editor, that makes it a lot easier to clear out quotes of the stuff you don’t want. Whenever I browse from my mobile, that’s how I handle large quotes / multi-quoting.
Dunno, as a casual user I have been using Waypoint, I am an avid forumer and know how to put a post and the quoting system here is a hindrance. Just sayin’. Besides, nah, deleting does not do the job very well.
> 2535469324078285;4:
> Dunno, as a casual user I have been using Waypoint, I am an avid forumer and know how to put a post and the quoting system here is a hindrance. Just sayin’. Besides, nah, deleting does not do the job very well.
You:
“I want to quote people but only parts I want to quote.”
Also you:
“Having to delete an extra lines of text to quote only what I want doesn’t do the job well!”
It’s exactly the same outcome.
If you’re an “avid forumer” then you know different forums have their pros and cons. No forums are 100% perfect. Could quoting be a bit easier? Maybe. Is it worth “fixing” (when it’s not even broken) in lieu of any of the other many things we’d rather see fixed? No.
Dudes, you do the bad way, you try to convince me the faulty way is the good way, which the standard I may take to another place and find out I have been cheated, also prolly stating that it was the Waypoint which taught me that the cheap way is all fine. You are okay with that, good. But it is you who stand for the face of this place.
Microsoft does the same trick with WindowsStore, but you know how the saying goes, not even a drop from an empty cup.
> 2533274813317074;3:
> If you click the code/source button on the right hand side of the editor, that makes it a lot easier to clear out quotes of the stuff you don’t want. Whenever I browse from my mobile, that’s how I handle large quotes / multi-quoting.
That’s a great idea. I don’t know why I never thought to do that.
> 2535469324078285;6:
> Dudes, you do the bad way, you try to convince me the faulty way is the good way, which the standard I may take to another place and find out I have been cheated, also prolly stating that it was the Waypoint which taught me that the cheap way is all fine. You are okay with that, good. But it is you who stand for the face of this place.
>
> Microsoft does the same trick with WindowsStore, but you know how the saying goes, not even a drop from an empty cup.
If it works it is ‘the good way.’ Again you aren’t the bastion of some superior system. There is only this one reality that you have to work in. The quoting system allows all the stuff you claim you want provided you put some effort into it.
Dudes, again, I have trouble clearing out all the tens of quotes-in when wanting to quote only one selected person and a line that person stated without too much hassle, especially if that line is present somewhere among the fractal of included quotes, which by the way make aesthetic view of the post including such quotation highly compromised and harder to read. Besides, I want to be able to refer to a person in the manner of:
@Dude
so that the person receives a notification as in case of regular being quoted. Third, I want to select a person by nickname and copy/paste whatever I want to quote manually from what the person wrote, but the quotebox must refer to that particular user already, so perhaps next to each nickname there could be two options: “refer to” and “quote”. “Refer to” makes a reference as already mentioned, while “quote” opens an empty quotebox with a nickname of the user indicated already installed.
Interesting site feedback.
Waypoint uses the same UX for quoting that virtually every other BBCode forum has used since the '90s. I know that sheer numbers don’t automatically make an idea a good one, but people have had decades to popularize a better one… and no one has. One of the barriers to that is that people expect websites to be consistent with one another, and can get confused and annoyed when a site tries out something non-standard and unfamiliar. How would you feel if a site replaced the scrollbar with some odd new widget?
If you think you have an idea whose benefits outweigh those disadvantages, why not prototype it? Here’s a good place to get started with learning JavaScript, and here’s Greasemonkey, a browser add-on that lets you add JavaScript code to the Internet. Build it yourself, see how it plays out, and publish it for others to use.
> 2533274843742113;10:
> Interesting site feedback.
>
> Waypoint uses the same UX for quoting that virtually every other BBCode has used since the '90s. I know that sheer numbers don’t automatically make an idea a good one, but people have had decades to popularize a better one… and no one has. One of the barriers to that is that people expect websites to be consistent with one another, and can get confused and annoyed when a site tries out something non-standard and unfamiliar. How would you feel if a site replaced the scrollbar with some odd new widget?
>
> If you think you have an idea whose benefits outweigh those disadvantages, why not prototype it? Here’s a good place to get started with learning JavaScript, and here’s Greasemonkey, a browser add-on that lets you add JavaScript code to the Internet. Build it yourself, see how it plays out, and publish it for others to use.
I am giving you a site feedback with clear indications of what I expect, nothing too much fancy and you guys get all defensive. I am not telling you to remove the present features in favour of those mentioned by me. I tell you first to add the ones I point out. Especially that they do not cross collide anyhow, being featured different places. Also I highly doubt anyone would report being distracted by the new functions, if installed reasonably.
And what exactly makes what you expect better than the status quo?
Serious question. You aren’t the only one on multiple forums, you don’t have a monopoly on knowing what works vs what doesn’t.
> 2535469324078285;9:
> Besides, I want to be able to refer to a person in the manner of:
>
> @Dudeso that the person receives a notification as in case of regular being quoted.
If I read you right, Waypoint already has this built in - the player BBCode: GinningSquid712
> [player] Gamertag [/player]
Allright, it seems basic maneuvers are available only to the pros. What about the quoting case though?
So if I type this: [player ] Dude [/player ]
The Dude will get notification?
> 2535469324078285;14:
> Allright, it seems basic maneuvers are available only to the pros. What about the quoting case though?
>
> test: GinningSquid712.
>
> EDIT:
>
> I did not get notification.
You’re not supposed to be able to notify yourself. That’s pointless.
Well you probably won’t get a notification by mentioning yourself, but if you were mentioning another user then they will get the notification. If somebody mentions you then you’ll get the notification
> 2533274817408735;15:
> > 2535469324078285;14:
> > Allright, it seems basic maneuvers are available only to the pros. What about the quoting case though?
> >
> > test: GinningSquid712.
> >
> > EDIT:
> >
> > I did not get notification.
>
> You’re not supposed to be able to notify yourself. That’s pointless.
I edited it, but yeah, I saw it when I tested in the direction of quoting notifications. But there are other questions now.
> 2533274813317074;16:
> Well you probably won’t get a notification by mentioning yourself, but if you were mentioning another user then they will get the notification. If somebody mentions you then you’ll get the notification
Very well, make it a common function available through one-click, transparently. Okay, for this reason quotes are fully okay to be semifunctional compared to expectations?
[nul]
> 2535469324078285;17:
> > 2533274817408735;15:
> > > 2535469324078285;14:
> > > Allright, it seems basic maneuvers are available only to the pros. What about the quoting case though?
> > >
> > > test: GinningSquid712.
> > >
> > > EDIT:
> > >
> > > I did not get notification.
> >
> > You’re not supposed to be able to notify yourself. That’s pointless.
>
> I edited it, but yeah, I saw it when I tested in the direction of quoting notifications. But there are other questions now.
If I type out the player BBC function for you, like this: GinningSquid712, then you will get a notification saying “Chimera30 has mentioned you in…”. This will be in addition to the notification “Chimera30 has quoted you in…”.
There’s a BBCode icon for it in the posting bar - the icon that looks like a little person. Click it and type a valid gamertag into the popup