Wikipedia talk:Flow/Indentation test

Current Flow threading model

A new indentation & threading model has been deployed in today's update. Here's a detailed explanation about this from DannyH, including a comparison with the wikitext indentation habits and traditions (and how confusing those "rules" are for almost all newcomers, especially in large threads), and links to past-discussions, phabricator, and some related ideas.

The short-version (an excerpt) is:

In this new version: If you're replying to the most recent post, then your reply just lines up under the previous message. A two-person back and forth conversation just looks flat, and the visual separation is noted with the user name and timestamp.

If you're specifically replying to a previous post, then your reply creates an indented tangent. If everybody responding on that tangent replies to the last message in that subthread, then it'll stay at the same indentation level. But if someone replies to an older message within the subthread, then that creates a third indentation level. It's set to a maximum of 8 possible indentation levels, and we just stop it there because there's a point where you can't fit a lot of text in each line.

The big idea of the new system is that the indentation should actually mean something. You should be able to tell the difference between a simple conversation and a complicated conversation at a glance, and using indented tangents helps you to spot the places in a conversation where there's a disagreement or a deeper level of detail.

A few editors have said they like it, but it wasn't clear to them how it was meant to work, until they'd read this explanation. Please discuss it here and in the topic linked above, and let the team know what suggestions/requests/concerns/ideas you have. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have said it yourself: "A few editors have said they like it, but it wasn't clear to them how it was meant to work, until they'd read this explanation.". Somehow, we do not seem to get that many questions how to read a discussion using the current system. Therefore, if you chose to describe the current system by claiming "how confusing those "rules" are for almost all newcomers", the new system is even worse.

Of course, in reality the claim that the current system is confusing is just false. Also, large and complex threads will be somewhat confusing using any possible system - that's essentially what "large and complex" means. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new threading was not confusing to newcomers, it was confusing to veterans. Diego (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I did understand it correctly, the new system has only been tried out with "veterans" and they found it confusing, not being able to guess (or reason out) what is supposed to end up where. I can see no reason why newbies would find it any less confusing. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried it out? It's been out on various Wikipedias for the last couple weeks, and so far the conversations that I've read seem sensible and productive. When you click on a reply link or in an entry field, it opens to show you where your message will be posted.

I don't think the actual feature is confusing. The thing that Nick was referring to was that the feature changed, and it's a rather subtle change, so the people who were used to Flow working in one way were surprised to see it acting in a different way. But I've been looking out for examples where a Flow conversation is unclear because the new indentation system is ruining something. I haven't found any yet, but if you do, I'd like to see them. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you tried it out?" - if the whole point of this new system is suitability for newbies, then we should ask "Is it intuitive enough for newbies?", right? In that case I am no longer a good "Guinea pig". I have read the description.

"It's been out on various Wikipedias for the last couple weeks, and so far the conversations that I've read seem sensible and productive." - that's a pretty low bar, isn't it? Yes, it is better than just positioning posts at random. But you are supposed to show that it is better than the current system.

"When you click on a reply link or in an entry field, it opens to show you where your message will be posted." - yes, one can learn how it works. But then, one can learn to use wikitext as well. For that matter, many newbies have managed to write something in plain text - and we do find out what is going on. It is not that easy to make something easier to use than that.

"The thing that Nick was referring to was that the feature changed, and it's a rather subtle change, so the people who were used to Flow working in one way were surprised to see it acting in a different way." - it is not just that. They knew what has changed and were trying to reason out how the new system works (even after the description was published - look at the series of posts ending with [1]). And there were many guesses. Too many. That's a sign of a non-intuitive system. The proposer has effectively admitted that much ([2] - "It's sad that people find it confusing at first, at least until someone explains them how the layout is working.").

The problem is that it is "your invention". There are web sites that use something like the current system for comments. There are web sites that use "flat" system with quotes (most forums). No one uses your system. Will anyone who wouldn't have learned wikitext want to learn it? I doubt it. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an updated proposal (originated by Hhhippo, and refined by me in this post) that would keep the same ordering and dependencies between posts that other threading system have, while retaining a mostly flat structure.

I think I've read that they tried the new threading system on unexperienced users and they didn't mind the change, though I can't find the discussion were I saw it so I can't confirm it. It would be an improvement for them in that case, as with Flow it's impossible to create badly threaded replies the way it is with wikitext. Diego (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There's an updated proposal (originated by Hhhippo, and refined by me in [this post]) that would keep the same ordering and dependencies between posts that other threading system have, while retaining a mostly flat structure." - unfortunately, the only thing that was clear to me was that you have to use different test cases... "A", "B", "C"... Who is supposed to be replying to what? Use longer names - "A1-answering-to-B1", or something...

"I think I've read that they tried the new threading system on unexperienced users and they didn't mind the change, though I can't find the discussion were I saw it so I can't confirm it." - yes, it is not very useful, unless one can see what actually happened. Too many things can go wrong.

"It would be an improvement for them in that case, as with Flow it's impossible to create badly threaded replies the way it is with wikitext." - actually, there is nothing wrong with "badly threaded replies" of the kind that newbies use. Nothing whatsoever. That's why such "improvement" tends to be mostly imaginary...

And anyway, it was a change of "Flow", not of wikitext. How did "New indentation & threading model" (or "Extra new indentation & threading model" you have mentioned here) compare with "Old indentation & threading model" in that same "Flow"? That's a more interesting question. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flow is a discussion system, and the most important goal is that the people who use it have interesting and productive conversations. It doesn't need to be judged based on how well it maps to another system's rules; it just needs to be good at what it does.

Martynas, you seem to be upset about this change to the feature, and I'm not sure why. Have you found it difficult to use? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't need to be judged based on how well it maps to another system's rules; it just needs to be good at what it does." - um, where in this discussion did I claim otherwise? On the contrary, I see that what has been proposed and implemented here is not "Flow" as such, but "New indentation & threading model", and I see that it is often compared with wikitext ("including a comparison with the wikitext indentation habits and traditions (and how confusing those "rules" are for almost all newcomers, especially in large threads)" etc.), instead of "Old indentation & threading model", as implemented in previous versions of "Flow". But it is that "Old indentation & threading model" that was replaced, and I wonder what is supposed to be better about the "New" one, compared with this "Old" one. I do see one obvious disadvantage of the "New model" (it is not familiar to "veterans" and it is not familiar to "newbies"). I think I see another, less obvious, disadvantage (it was not intuitive enough for participants in the discussion to find out what it actually is, thus it might be somewhat more confusing than the "Old model"). And I can see many vague claims that hint about presence of advantages ("I love it!" and the like). But I do not see any actual advantages written down, black on white. And I am asking what they are.

"Martynas, you seem to be upset about this change to the feature..." - I do?

Oh, and, since I ended up unsure what exactly did you respond to with "It doesn't need to be judged based on how well it maps to another system's rules; it just needs to be good at what it does.", even if I know what "post" you have replied to... Are there any plans to encourage (or discourage) quoting the posts being replied to? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here I've talked a little about the relative advantages and disadvantages of the new Flow indentation vs the old talk page convention (it's not really part of mediawiki, just a style guideline). In summary, the new threading model doesn't create as many deep indentation levels, and the conversation can run much longer without requiring indentation tricks; with the new model I wouldn't have needed the above {{outdent}} template to return the conversation to a sane left margin.

In fact, the threading model is independent of the software platform, and could be perfectly used on wikitext as well. I have posted here an example of this very conversation under the current Flow threading model, and here with the proposed refinement (they only differ in the order of the last three posts). Can you see how the model may be simpler to understand to a person reading Talk pages for the first time? Diego (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it won't be a replacement of the talk page? Because talk pages are much, much more then just conversation pages. Conversations are the least necessary workflow, they may be nice, but not that essential for building an encyclopaedia. If this dumbed down model of a forum impersonation could go anywhere in its current state, it's at most besides real talk pages in the article name space, and probably as well most user name spaces (I for example don't want such stuff anywhere near my talk page). Thje most important workflow for talk pages is the collaborative article improvement, where sources, layouts, small votes/consensus builds are made.

The current state of Flow lets it look like some facebookisation spree (togeter with MV, Gather, UserProfile and other useles stuff) something that seems to have traction in SF, but not the communities. There is even an explicit rule against the facebookisation of the wikiverse, the WMF has to stick by the rules, they are not the bosses, just trustees.

Talk pages should behave just like any other pages in the wikiverse, any deviation would introduce confusion. They should be fully accessible via wikitext/wikisytax editors, or they are broken.

Flow forum impersonations may be a nice add-on on talk pages, but will hopefully never ever replace them. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 10:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed updated Flow threading model

A new indentation & threading model has been deployed in today's update. Here's a detailed explanation about this from DannyH, including a comparison with the wikitext indentation habits and traditions (and how confusing those "rules" are for almost all newcomers, especially in large threads), and links to past-discussions, phabricator, and some related ideas.

The short-version (an excerpt) is:

In this new version: If you're replying to the most recent post, then your reply just lines up under the previous message. A two-person back and forth conversation just looks flat, and the visual separation is noted with the user name and timestamp.

If you're specifically replying to a previous post, then your reply creates an indented tangent. If everybody responding on that tangent replies to the last message in that subthread, then it'll stay at the same indentation level. But if someone replies to an older message within the subthread, then that creates a third indentation level. It's set to a maximum of 8 possible indentation levels, and we just stop it there because there's a point where you can't fit a lot of text in each line.

The big idea of the new system is that the indentation should actually mean something. You should be able to tell the difference between a simple conversation and a complicated conversation at a glance, and using indented tangents helps you to spot the places in a conversation where there's a disagreement or a deeper level of detail.

A few editors have said they like it, but it wasn't clear to them how it was meant to work, until they'd read this explanation. Please discuss it here and in the topic linked above, and let the team know what suggestions/requests/concerns/ideas you have. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have said it yourself: "A few editors have said they like it, but it wasn't clear to them how it was meant to work, until they'd read this explanation.". Somehow, we do not seem to get that many questions how to read a discussion using the current system. Therefore, if you chose to describe the current system by claiming "how confusing those "rules" are for almost all newcomers", the new system is even worse.

Of course, in reality the claim that the current system is confusing is just false. Also, large and complex threads will be somewhat confusing using any possible system - that's essentially what "large and complex" means. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new threading was not confusing to newcomers, it was confusing to veterans. Diego (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I did understand it correctly, the new system has only been tried out with "veterans" and they found it confusing, not being able to guess (or reason out) what is supposed to end up where. I can see no reason why newbies would find it any less confusing. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried it out? It's been out on various Wikipedias for the last couple weeks, and so far the conversations that I've read seem sensible and productive. When you click on a reply link or in an entry field, it opens to show you where your message will be posted.

I don't think the actual feature is confusing. The thing that Nick was referring to was that the feature changed, and it's a rather subtle change, so the people who were used to Flow working in one way were surprised to see it acting in a different way. But I've been looking out for examples where a Flow conversation is unclear because the new indentation system is ruining something. I haven't found any yet, but if you do, I'd like to see them. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you tried it out?" - if the whole point of this new system is suitability for newbies, then we should ask "Is it intuitive enough for newbies?", right? In that case I am no longer a good "Guinea pig". I have read the description.

"It's been out on various Wikipedias for the last couple weeks, and so far the conversations that I've read seem sensible and productive." - that's a pretty low bar, isn't it? Yes, it is better than just positioning posts at random. But you are supposed to show that it is better than the current system.

"When you click on a reply link or in an entry field, it opens to show you where your message will be posted." - yes, one can learn how it works. But then, one can learn to use wikitext as well. For that matter, many newbies have managed to write something in plain text - and we do find out what is going on. It is not that easy to make something easier to use than that.

"The thing that Nick was referring to was that the feature changed, and it's a rather subtle change, so the people who were used to Flow working in one way were surprised to see it acting in a different way." - it is not just that. They knew what has changed and were trying to reason out how the new system works (even after the description was published - look at the series of posts ending with [3]). And there were many guesses. Too many. That's a sign of a non-intuitive system. The proposer has effectively admitted that much ([4] - "It's sad that people find it confusing at first, at least until someone explains them how the layout is working.").

The problem is that it is "your invention". There are web sites that use something like the current system for comments. There are web sites that use "flat" system with quotes (most forums). No one uses your system. Will anyone who wouldn't have learned wikitext want to learn it? I doubt it. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an updated proposal (originated by Hhhippo, and refined by me in this post) that would keep the same ordering and dependencies between posts that other threading system have, while retaining a mostly flat structure.

I think I've read that they tried the new threading system on unexperienced users and they didn't mind the change, though I can't find the discussion were I saw it so I can't confirm it. It would be an improvement for them in that case, as with Flow it's impossible to create badly threaded replies the way it is with wikitext. Diego (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There's an updated proposal (originated by Hhhippo, and refined by me in [this post]) that would keep the same ordering and dependencies between posts that other threading system have, while retaining a mostly flat structure." - unfortunately, the only thing that was clear to me was that you have to use different test cases... "A", "B", "C"... Who is supposed to be replying to what? Use longer names - "A1-answering-to-B1", or something...

"I think I've read that they tried the new threading system on unexperienced users and they didn't mind the change, though I can't find the discussion were I saw it so I can't confirm it." - yes, it is not very useful, unless one can see what actually happened. Too many things can go wrong.

"It would be an improvement for them in that case, as with Flow it's impossible to create badly threaded replies the way it is with wikitext." - actually, there is nothing wrong with "badly threaded replies" of the kind that newbies use. Nothing whatsoever. That's why such "improvement" tends to be mostly imaginary...

And anyway, it was a change of "Flow", not of wikitext. How did "New indentation & threading model" (or "Extra new indentation & threading model" you have mentioned here) compare with "Old indentation & threading model" in that same "Flow"? That's a more interesting question. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flow is a discussion system, and the most important goal is that the people who use it have interesting and productive conversations. It doesn't need to be judged based on how well it maps to another system's rules; it just needs to be good at what it does.

Martynas, you seem to be upset about this change to the feature, and I'm not sure why. Have you found it difficult to use? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it won't be a replacement of the talk page? Because talk pages are much, much more then just conversation pages. Conversations are the least necessary workflow, they may be nice, but not that essential for building an encyclopaedia. If this dumbed down model of a forum impersonation could go anywhere in its current state, it's at most besides real talk pages in the article name space, and probably as well most user name spaces (I for example don't want such stuff anywhere near my talk page). Thje most important workflow for talk pages is the collaborative article improvement, where sources, layouts, small votes/consensus builds are made.

The current state of Flow lets it look like some facebookisation spree (togeter with MV, Gather, UserProfile and other useles stuff) something that seems to have traction in SF, but not the communities. There is even an explicit rule against the facebookisation of the wikiverse, the WMF has to stick by the rules, they are not the bosses, just trustees.

Talk pages should behave just like any other pages in the wikiverse, any deviation would introduce confusion. They should be fully accessible via wikitext/wikisytax editors, or they are broken.

Flow forum impersonations may be a nice add-on on talk pages, but will hopefully never ever replace them. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 10:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't need to be judged based on how well it maps to another system's rules; it just needs to be good at what it does." - um, where in this discussion did I claim otherwise? On the contrary, I see that what has been proposed and implemented here is not "Flow" as such, but "New indentation & threading model", and I see that it is often compared with wikitext ("including a comparison with the wikitext indentation habits and traditions (and how confusing those "rules" are for almost all newcomers, especially in large threads)" etc.), instead of "Old indentation & threading model", as implemented in previous versions of "Flow". But it is that "Old indentation & threading model" that was replaced, and I wonder what is supposed to be better about the "New" one, compared with this "Old" one. I do see one obvious disadvantage of the "New model" (it is not familiar to "veterans" and it is not familiar to "newbies"). I think I see another, less obvious, disadvantage (it was not intuitive enough for participants in the discussion to find out what it actually is, thus it might be somewhat more confusing than the "Old model"). And I can see many vague claims that hint about presence of advantages ("I love it!" and the like). But I do not see any actual advantages written down, black on white. And I am asking what they are.

"Martynas, you seem to be upset about this change to the feature..." - I do?

Oh, and, since I ended up unsure what exactly did you respond to with "It doesn't need to be judged based on how well it maps to another system's rules; it just needs to be good at what it does.", even if I know what "post" you have replied to... Are there any plans to encourage (or discourage) quoting the posts being replied to? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here I've talked a little about the relative advantages and disadvantages of the new Flow indentation vs the old talk page convention (it's not really part of mediawiki, just a style guideline). In summary, the new threading model doesn't create as many deep indentation levels, and the conversation can run much longer without requiring indentation tricks; with the new model I wouldn't have needed the above {{outdent}} template to return the conversation to a sane left margin.

In fact, the threading model is independent of the software platform, and could be perfectly used on wikitext as well. I have posted here an example of this very conversation under the current Flow threading model, and here with the proposed refinement (they only differ in the order of the last three posts). Can you see how the model may be simpler to understand to a person reading Talk pages for the first time? Diego (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]