--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > Well, I went to the web site, logged in an posted a couple pictures of > what the Neo interface looks like on a mobile device for those that > don't own one. Except that was a couple hours ago and it still hasn't > shown up. Bad Yahoo!
Yahoo is bug city, that's fersure. But when you think about it, all of Judy's "criteria" for "discussion-oriented forums" are in fact criteria for ARGUING. Most *discussions* could take place very easily with a few top-posted lines in reply to someone else's post. It's only nitpicky, "my ego is right and yours is wrong," line-by-line refutations that require the kind of interface she wants. Same with Search. Who *needs* to look up a bunch of comments on a chat board, except for someone whose ego is heavily invested in "winning" some imaginary "battle" by arguing on that forum? > On 11/26/2013 11:31 AM, authfriend@... wrote: > > > > *The main problem with Neo--at least for discussion-oriented forums > > like FFL--is the formatting of replies. Top posting is fine in some > > cases, but if you want to interleave your comments, the formatting > > problems make coherent exchanges extremely difficult.* > > > > *Another major problem is the very limited size of the reply window if > > you're doing anything but top-posting.* > > > > *And the other big problem is the search function, which is crippled > > by the inability to search by date (that option has been broken from > > the beginning). Plus which, the endless scroll is wildly inefficient. > > If you open a post thinking it might be the one you want, and find it > > isn't and close it, you're taken back to the very top of the search > > and have to scroll all the way back down again. (To work around this > > glitch, open the post in a new tab.) And very frequently you won't > > even be able to call up a list of more than 10 or so posts; you get an > > error message that Search can't show you the rest.* > > > > *For replies, there is an option to use plain text and eliminate the > > impossibly crappy Rich Text formatting, but the result is even crappier:
