Recently in another topic post there was a notice of a flaw in the software function. The response was that this was the way it was in Discourse.
This brought to mind the fact that using a newer product over the older tried and true forum products may not always be a good idea.
In particular, the threading functionality of this product is not up to snuff and operates in a strange non-standard manner. It causes duplication of the posts and also misleads the reader into a loss of train of thought.
Now it could be that there is an improvement in this product in that it is able to handle sub-threading correctly, but one or more of the settings is not properly applied.
Sub-threading helps in reaching a consensus on a sub-part of a discussion, and thereby better directing the rest of the discussion. But to do so, it must be set up correctly and function as it needs to.
life is hard enough without having to keep changing everything that is the problem with nearly all software some has an idea then implements it we all then play catch up I’m just too old and seen it all before
That is correct, but only if the software is done poorly. A good piece of software code is always expandable in non-intrusive ways.
That fact of the matter is that none of us has ever seen the perfect program. But we must not give up. Defeatism never encourages progress or success, IMHO.
There is no chance we’re leaving Discourse. It is, by far, the best forum software I’ve ever used or maintained (and we’ve been through five, maybe six, different forum implementations for Virtualmin.com alone, and I’ve maintained others for former employers and other projects).
I love Discourse. It is very close to perfect software in my eyes. It is a dream made real for anyone who has ever maintained any other forum software. Impossible to overstate how amazing it is, and how committed I am to it.
I wouldn’t participate in any kind of threaded discussion—it’s always a chaotic mess and feels like a leftover from the social media era. And, I completely agree with Joe, as Discourse is truly state-of-the-art software!
I’m not going to argue about it. I don’t need permission or consensus, this forum is my responsibility, so I’m the one that decides what software it runs. It’s not a thing we’re going to vote about.
As I mentioned, we’ve been through many forum software tools, and it’s not even close which one we all (Ilia, Jamie, Eric, and I) prefer. The vast majority of our users who have expressed an opinion prefer it to all previous alternatives, too. I’ve never seen anyone suggest we use something else until just now, and you haven’t mentioned what specific forum software you believe is superior, so I don’t even know how to tell you why Discourse is preferable (though I’m confident it is, I did a ton of research and testing).
Again, think of this as a community driven support ticket forum. Threads in this case would fracture the flow. What’s been suggested? What’s been tried? What information has the OP been asked to provide? Individual threads become rabbit holes and other, sometimes the correct responses, end up outside that rabbit hole because the OP simply chooses wrong.
Most important, how do I pick up where I left off if it isn’t sequential? I have to jump around different threads to see if anything new has been added. I think that is the deal breaker here.
First, we see that the software created a post where the reply was put after the point that the reply button was selected, but then duplicated it at the end of the whole thread. That is bizarre.
Then I came here and select the reply at the bottom of the whole thread and it took me to another page. Another bizarre action.
But the real problem that society has in these sorts of discussion group settings is that the best way is to have a moderator and white board. As an issue is discussed, the commenters will come up with associated issues which bear upon the subject at hand. The moderator will note this on the board and make sure it is addressed before the final resolution is reached.
This is necessary because we never want anyone left behind in their thinking, and legitimate surrounding issues must be addressed so that the group as a whole can be brought to common understanding and appreciation that the topic has been completely covered. Leaving a situation where something remains unaddressed is never a good idea.
Therefore, sub-threads can reach conclusion concurrently with the main thread topic while fully creating a sound solution, without leaving comments ignored as is often the case in average forums.
I had sort of thought that this software had that function because of the sub-thread that appeared to be created depending upon where the comments were entered. Perhaps I was mislead.
You seem to be describing a consensus decision-making process, and I don’t think consensus decision-making is a good analog of what we’re trying to do here. Or, any other group decision making process that would involve a white board and trying to address everybody’s concerns on every topic.
We’re not a governing body. We’re not discussing things where we have to sort out which direction to go with buy-in from a bunch of possibly conflicting interests. And, we are not trying to address everyone’s concerns.
We are discussing specific problems people have, and we’re trying to solve the specific problem. There is a right and wrong answer almost always. We’re not going to go around the room and ask everyone’s consent for someone to implement the change that fixes their problem. It’s not being disrespectful to try and then disregard wrong answers and move on, it’s just what you do when troubleshooting problems.
It is also not an appropriate use of the forum to branch out into a bunch of different topics that have to be resolved before everyone is happy and we can mark it solved. I would argue threading like you want (every response creates a new sub-topic that remains under the comment it is responding to) would be counter to our goal of solving specific problems in a reasonable time. It continues to be true that it is a violation of our guidelines to change the topic mid-thread. If you need a sub-thread, I think you’re probably violating the spirit and the letter of our rules, and you’re making it difficult or impossible for me to help (this is my failing, I can’t keep up with a bunch of different threads at once, I get confused, but since the forum is my responsibility and I’m the person who answers the most questions, the forum rules reflect making it work for me).
But, when you comment without quoting, the forum software does indicate who you’re replying to. So, it does keep up with who and what you’re speaking to, so it’s not like it’s a total mystery what a comment is about even if it does diverge a bit from the topic at hand (but don’t diverge from the topic at hand!).
Can you point to that post? Maybe the software glitched.
This could be browser related. If I start a reply and change my mind (happens often) I now completely delete the text. I’ve seen some strange things in the past that this seems to solve.
When I deploy a forum, I will use discourse. With it’s active message pushes, you can see when people are replying is great. The is forum is active rather than a php one which would be passive.
some people still ask me for forum software, like phpbb, smf/elkarte, etc.. not many classic fora software left, but still imho, thread/topic hierarchy and search options are much better there, than discourse..
haven’t setup any discourse (didn’t have to so far), so don’t know requirements etc.. but as a user, don’t like it much. reminds me of social network “wanna-be”, not -classic- forum/discussion software.
edit] and slower (responsiveness) than php ones.
edit2] just saw requirements,… in comparison, hosting ~40 smf forums in such a vps.. (1GB RAM, 1vcpu)
forum softwares are now vanishing. there is flarum which is good too but i don’t see any reason to switch. discourse is widely popular and maintained.
has an idea then implements it we all then play catch up I’m just too old 
and seen it all before