Perfect. My inbox thanks you. It became a busy thread!
Hey, did something change with youtube-embedding? I am sure it did so automatically before, but it doesnât do so now. I am not complaining, just wondered if some setting has been changed.
Works fine
Perhaps you tried to embed a video that has embedding disabled; check on YouTube because the person who posts the video can turn that off, and some people / entities absolutely do.
Aha, makes sense. Thanks!
Post June 15th, turn the likes back on please. What is a good reason not to have that? What does it hurt? Lots of times reading a thread I see a post that basically says what I wanted to say. Iâd like to be able to just like the post rather than deciding whether to make a post that just says, basically, âI agree with youâ vs not doing anything.
[quote=âolaf, post:1021, topic:119996â]What is a good reason not to have that? What does it hurt?
[/quote]
I gather you havenât been following this thread much have you?
I definitely prefer getting and giving likes vs. nothing. I am never going to reply to every single post I think is useful/funny/insightful/interesting (especially if Iâm on my phone when I read it) but clicking like is easy and I am pretty sure the person receiving the like appreciates it.
eh⌠yup, thanks!
Keep the âlikes yes or noâ discussion in that topic, not here.
I gather you havenât been following this thread much have you?
[/quote]
No I havenât been following this thread.
Question for the Discourse experts (or; paging @wumpus). This has been confusing me since day one and I still havenât figured it out.
Why do posts sometimes have the person/post being replied to listed and other times not? There have been many times I read someone clearly replying to a specific post, but I canât puzzle out what post they are referring to?
As an example, I mean this:
Sometimes when I reply to an actual post I see that in âreply to %username%â in the reply, and other timesâŚ
I will not? What am I doing wrong that it doesnât show up? When that little reply icon isnât in the upper right of the post, how can I figure out what the person is replying to when they donât quote the message they are replying to? Is there a way?
If you click the Reply button within a given post, it will automatically tie your post to theirs with the visual indicator you mentioned⌠AFAIK, the first reply you quote from in a thread (if you are quoting from multiple) will also get that tag. Of course, quote boxes also include a little expando to see the full post youâre quoting from, if you prefer that.
If you just click the Reply button at the bottom of the entire thread, it wonât tie your post to anyone elseâs, and AFAIK, thereâs no way to edit that metadata in once youâve made your post.
So, if someone doesnât use the Reply button in a post theyâre replying to, or quote from it, thereâs no way to definitively know who they are replying to without asking or hoping for exceedingly obvious context.
Similar but interesting tidbit: you may notice that posts that get replied to a lot will have a little âX Repliesâ tracker at the bottom of them. This works all the time, unless specifically the only reply to them is the very next post, in which case I guess that Discourse assumes you should be able to infer it is a reply, and hides the âX Repliesâ tracker. If thereâs any gap, or more than one reply, it will show up, though.
My images might not be very helpful, but I am clicking reply at the lower right of the post itself. I can tell because the reply to at the top left of the reply box has the personâs name (like in the picture I took) but the resulting reply will just be a blank space in the upper right. I am using this very post as an example!
EDIT -
EDIT 2 -
I just noticed this - maybe this is whatâs going on?
It would appear that my presumably informative-but-unrelated note at the bottom of my post may be key here? you are the first reply after my post, and replying directly to me, so Discourse is not showing the âX Repliesâ or âReply Toâ tags, because it hopes users will infer we are talking directly to each other.
Yep, I think you are correct. Thatâs⌠maddening. Anyway that can be changed so EVERY reply behaves the same, not just the ones non-adjacent, perhaps?
Ah! TIL. Thanks.
Any reason that Twitter links are so much larger than they use to be?
This is correct, if the only reply (as in, there is literally one reply) is directly under the post, then you wonât see it, as the metadata gets extremely noisy.
I do agree with Scott that having that be a configurable option might not be a bad idea for a future release, @wumpus. Especially for boards that, say, hack out avatars and replace 'em with name-text (oh God, what I wouldnât pay @stusser or someone to make a Qt3 theme that replaced avatarsâaside from the ones beside our usernames at the top-left of postsâwith usernames, instead), reducing the visual clutter of the extra tags.
I mean, donât get me wrong, I can see why itâs off by default. But a more tweakable forum isnât necessarily a bad thing! :)