On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Brion Vibber wrote: > On 12/23/2009 02:48 PM, Evan Prodromou wrote: >> >> Editable repeats. See e.g. http://identi.ca/notice/17329151. Some users want >> to add editorial notes or comments to their repeats. I think this is >> probably a bad idea; since we hide the content of the repeat most of the >> time (in favor of the content of the original), it doesn't make much sense >> to edit it. I also think it'd be hard to provide a user interface that makes >> it easy to do one or the other. > *nod* I like being able to edit after, but much of that is avoided if we drop > the group & reply delivery, so they don't have to be edited out. If I'm > adding commentary I'm ok with forwarding that one manually...
But isn't that the natural thing to do? I mean, it's like a game of telephone. When Alice says something to Bob, who then repeats it to Charles, Charles gets Bob's version, and *not* Alice's. That's what I really like about manual repeats, and that's why I really, really don't like not getting the chance to editorialize in the repeated notice itself. It was a deal-breaker in using the feature for me in Twitter's implementation, and it's a deal-breaker for me in StatusNet, too. I like the idea that a repeated notice gets re-broadcast in the ways that it is doing now (except for the owch cases of flooding as has been mentioned—and I think Evan's solutions in those cases make perfect sense). I also like the idea that a repeated notice contains within it a reference to the original notice. I would love to be able to editorialize on someone else's notice while still providing a link to their notice directly. (Isn't that how "trackback" and "pingback" work in the blogging world, too?) > To me the main remaining "ouch" case is where the original + the "RT @blah" > goes over the length limit... should we crop silently (ouch!) or reject it > (eek!) or give a chance to trim manually? Cropping actually may be 'good > enough' if the actual original notice info is getting retrieved through the > web interface and current clients. Why not simply maintain metadata for repeated notices, but allow the actual content of those notices to change? IOW, show that a notice "is a repeat of" some other notice, but let the text of that notice be free-form, similar to the way @-replies are. Wouldn't this inherently solve some of the cases of "flooding" and also of "cropping," since people's own editorializing would let them choose what the most important part of a notice is *to them.* 2¢, -Meitar Moscovitz Personal: http://maymay.net Professional: http://MeitarMoscovitz.com
_______________________________________________ StatusNet-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.status.net/mailman/listinfo/statusnet-dev
