Note that I said “quoted posts”, not “quote posts”, don’t @ me!

After the last WG meeting @thisismissem@hachyderm.io @trwnh@mastodon.social and I chatted a bit about how NodeBB handles quoted posts, but also in relation to quote posts. I thought that it was an interesting chat that merited further discussion; also because some of it was over my head.

When asked how NodeBB handles blockquotes specifically, I replied that blockquotes themselves are rather simple. We set a copy of the text wrapped in <blockquote>.

The rationale is simple: forums typically represent content in a linear fashion, and quoted posts are a handy way to reinforce subcontext within a topic. A typical topic/thread could have many separate discussions all happening together (aka thread drift), so quotes help others know what you’re responding to. We don’t have special handling or references to our blockquotes because there is a history in forums of edited blockquotes.

Perhaps you want to have a block quote and add some emphasis?

It’s also better netiquette (god, that term is old) to trim down the quote to only the relevant parts.

Another upside is that a copy-paste of a post preserves that post to history. That can be useful if the quoted user tries to edit their post later, etc.

vis-a-vis the concept of “quote posts”, which I take to mean an embedded post within a post, allowing for replies, likes, etc. How that is represented via ActivityPub is probably detailed in some FEP, but NodeBB doesn’t implement that yet. It’s a more complicated mechanism that requires a lot more thinking through, and to be honest, we haven’t had the need for that in the 10+ years we’ve been building NodeBB.

  • julian@community.nodebb.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    @scott@loves.tech @Christian-Stange @mro@digitalcourage.social I think I disagree that a conversation need mark that it is a “forum”. It explicitly flags that the thread is different from microblogging, but why shouldn’t microblogs mark their conversations instead (I ask purely to play devil’s advocate because it isn’t feasible nor realistic)?

    Especially in this case when you yourself said it’s a cultural problem (💯 agreed btw), the distinction is especially meaningless to the end user, who doesn’t give two cents whether they’re replying to a microblog or not.

    • Scott M. Stolz@loves.tech
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      @julian It’s interesting how different platforms implement things. Some platforms, like Friendica, tell you which platform someone is using by showing a little icon next to their name on all of their posts (Mastodon icon, Hubzilla icon, potentially a NodeBB icon, etc.), whereas Mastodon makes it appear as if everyone is on Mastodon. Some Mastodon users are not even aware that they are talking to people on other platforms.

      The reason why I say indicating that it is a forum or group discussion is useful is not just the cultural issue, but also because replies to forum posts are distributed differently than a normal post. You are not just replying to your followers and the person who posted, but also to everyone following the forum (or forum category).

      But, this is something that is nice to have, and not needed. It just is useful information to have. And I doubt that platforms like Mastodon will make such a change anyway.

      It’s also interesting to see how platforms that pre-date Mastodon implement things versus platforms that came later and are influenced by Mastodon.

      • julian@community.nodebb.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        @scott@loves.tech I think it’s a neat thing to show the software icon next to a post.

        … but at the same time, think about who you want to use your software. Software geeks? Totally on board with that.

        … but everyday people won’t know what they’re even looking at, and this (among other items people constantly bring up re: explaining ActivityPub) is all stuff that should be abstracted away from the end user.

        It’s not a matter of “before Mastodon” and “after Mastodon”, at all.

        • Scott M. Stolz@loves.tech
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          @julian Or, to put it more diplomatically and to give a little context, this argument over blockquotes has been going on for about 8 years now. I don’t think everyone is going to be on board with a single solution.

          • julian@community.nodebb.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            @scott@loves.tech at it’s core quote posts and block quotes are separate constructs. I have no plans to disallow users from making block quotes (not to mention there’s no way I can even do that).

            • Scott M. Stolz@loves.tech
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              @julian Sorry if I was a bit salty earlier and I didn’t want to rain on anyone’s parade.

              There are many benefits to this proposed variation of quote posts where the person being quoted can update or delete their quote.

              Let me argue the other side then.

              One big benefit of this proposed quote post methodology is that it would be a version that Mastodon, et. al. would probably be willing to support. They have valid concerns that people will abuse quote posts to harass others. This proposal mitigates that.

              It also is useful in non-malicious contexts since people can fix typos and errors in their original post. It’s also useful if the person being quoted wants to retract what they said, perhaps because they changed their mind on a topic or found new information.

              Malicious use can be mitigated in the UI by indicating the quoted person changed their post and providing a history of changes. Some platforms already do this for regular posts.

              The quoted person being able to delete their quote raises some unique philosophical questions, like whether a politician can delete something they said from a journalist’s quote post. Or where someone intentionally changes their post in a malicious manner, which alters the quote post and makes the person quoting someone else look bad.

              So, there are many facets to this proposal. It still may be good to pursue even if some platforms aren’t going to implement it. But there are also some scenarios we want to consider.

            • Scott M. Stolz@loves.tech
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              @julian I don’t think that will matter. People who want a quote that cannot be deleted with figure that out and will pick the method that makes the quote undeletable. It seems like a lot of work for something that people will simply bypass.

        • Scott M. Stolz@loves.tech
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          @julian

          It’s not a matter of “before Mastodon” and “after Mastodon”, at all.

          I was trying not to state this so bluntly, but basically, platforms that came before Mastodon has blockquotes before Mastodon existed. We did not get rid of them in 2016, and we aren’t getting rid of them now.

          So, even if you implement this proposed feature, which is your right, some platforms will stay with the tried and true blockquotes.