How do I add a comment into the middle of a chain?

We are trying to use Faithlife to carry on a discussion
A topic C was started. There was a reply C 2. Then a second reply C 3
Someone wanted to comment on C2 after C 3 was posted.
Have I missed something?
How can a comment to C2 be added to C2 after the comment C3 is added?

David Ames 2 minutes ago
Topic C
Reply • [[I can add a reply to the top of the chain ]]

David Ames 2 minutes ago
Topic C 2

David Ames less than a minute ago
Topic C 3
Amen •

David Ames less than a minute ago
How do I insert a reply topic C 2 after Topic C 3 was added after Topic C 2

Or I can add a reply at the end of the chain

But How do I stick a reply into the middle of the chain?

The only add points in a chain seem to be at the end and just after the head - please advise.

[Yes, in this simple example I could add the reply before C 2 by adding it after C BUT what if I wanted to add it to C 9 when there were 40 replies?]

Find more posts tagged with

Performance

Comments

NB.Mick

How do I add a comment into the middle of a chain?

afaik: You can't.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488369#Comment_488369

How do I add a comment into the middle of a chain?

afaik: You can't.

And that is the WHOLE problem.

To hold a conversation one needs to be able to comment to ANY prior comment. Not just the ones that happen to be at an open please comment here spot.

In a conversation every point MUST be the starting point of a thread so that others can comment on that exact comment and then others also add their comments. Adding them at some other point loses the thread of the conversation.

How, with out unlimited inserting of comments, do we use faithlife to hold true conversations / discussions?

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488439#Comment_488439

How, with out unlimited inserting of comments, do we use faithlife to hold true conversations / discussions?

We don't. It's a lame discussion platform as it stands.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488440#Comment_488440

How, with out unlimited inserting of comments, do we use faithlife to hold true conversations / discussions?

We don't. It's a lame discussion platform as it stands.

Thank You. Exactly where I was headed!

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488439#Comment_488439

How, with out unlimited inserting of comments, do we use faithlife to hold true conversations / discussions?

Well, to point out something maybe too obvious for us to notice: This forum has no "unlimited inserting of comments" either - we write posts into new threads or reply at the end of an existing chain.

What helps us here is the ability to cite previous posts (as I did with yours, which came from the middle of the chain), but I've seen active discussions on the web where no citation is facilitated and people either manually copy the relevant part or write "@David" when they reply.

I think when faithlife was designed, the people at Logos thought less of long, theologically deep conversations (which are more hampered by the character limitation) but more of quick exchanges "look what I found here" "this sound-bite is really cool" etc. I think, this forum could better be used for "true conversations/discussions" than the current implementation status of faithlife, which aims into a different direction: It is geared less towards the would-be theology professors and more towards the young mums that sip a coffee cappucchino while watching their toddlers play.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488561#Comment_488561

It is geared less towards the would-be theology professors and more towards the young mums that sip a coffee cappucchino while watching their toddlers play.

The ones that are only in the current subject and don't care what was said last week.

Some have tried discussing a book and the ones that come to the table late are lost.

We are NOT to get deep into theology on the forum. Do we come up with specs for a true discussion package?

unlimited inserting of comments and a way to see only main topics would be my first two.

Frank Fenby

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488582#Comment_488582

What we really need is a "threaded" discussion manager. There are a bunch of these available. I have have have taken and taught college and university classes that use these. Those sort of discussion managers are wonderful.

For the forum the current linear is probably fine. But for for any sort of "intellectual engagement" the threaded managers are the only way to go. Faithlife is an "intellectual" engagement.

I hope Bob and Logos development are monitoring this thread.

Bob Pritchett

The News feed on a Faithlife page was intentionally designed (like Facebook) with a single-level reply model, specifically to avoid/discourage deep, nested, threaded conversations.

That's what discussion forums (like this one, and others) are for, and it usually works best when there are multiple top-level topics, so once a thread gets super long you can start another, get back to it, avoid it, etc. as you wish.

If Faithlife did that, and tried to mix it into the time-based news feed model, you'd have a new navigation problem, where regular activity pushed things down, but important and ongoing discussions got 'lost' / hard-to-get-back-to because the parent comment that started the deep chain was pushed way down the stack.

To support discussions, we have a spec for a threaded, topic-based discussion board (essentially web-forums) for Faithlife groups. It's simply not implemented yet. But I'm glad to hear there is interest, and I'll keep that in mind as we're prioritizing projects.

Thanks!

-- Bob

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488746#Comment_488746

The News feed on a Faithlife page was intentionally designed (like Facebook) with a single-level reply model,

Facebook has recently added the ability to reply to a comment earlier in a thread, and have your reply get indented under that comment instead of going at the end of the thread.

...specifically to avoid/discourage deep, nested, threaded conversations.

That's what discussion forums (like this one, and others) are for...

Yes, but we're always being told not to have theological discussions on this forum, but rather to take it over to Faithlife.

I'm glad to hear there are plans for a threaded topic-based discussion board there. That will fill in the gap.

Frank Fenby

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488746#Comment_488746

To support discussions, we have a spec for a threaded, topic-based discussion board (essentially web-forums) for Faithlife groups. It's simply not implemented yet. But I'm glad to hear there is interest, and I'll keep that in mind as we're prioritizing projects.

Thank you Bob! I have held off doing much with the Faithlife discussions because they lacked the "threaded" discussion ability. I am glad to hear that it is being planned. I for one would love to have it implemented yesterday. [:P] But I know you have many specs that are also begging for attention. However when this spec is implemented it will likely be possible to teach some entire college or seminary courses using nothing but Faithlife.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/488439#Comment_488439

To hold a conversation

[Hope no one minds that I reopened this thread but we left out one other problem in Faithlife groups.]

There is not much room to say anything. Yes, we may not want to go on for page after page but I had to cut 21 characters off what I thought was a short, just under 178 word three paragraph, comment