Quick Reply

[NZorak]

Is it too late to ask you to add a quick reply field, which could be turned on or off in the admin panel? It was such a simple mod to add under phpBB2 that it seems silly to not have it in 3.0.

By the way, NICE job with this so far. I also have a fully updated and somewhat modded VBulletin board, but I've been playing with the 3.0 beta, and I'm finding that I'm actually preferring 3.0 in many areas to VBulletin.

[Handyman]

phpBB3 is feature frozen, but somebody has already created a Quick reply mod.
It looks really nice

[karlsemple]

The developers have said on many occasions that phpBB will never ship with a quick reply feature as standard, to much of a chat feature oppose to a message board feature

[Malphas]

The developers have said on many occasions that phpBB will never ship with a quick reply feature as standard, to much of a chat feature oppose to a message board feature

Which is utterly egotistical and inane, quite frankly.

[SamG]

I can see inane, but why egotistical? It makes no obvious sense to throw ad homs in an already inane discussion. It's quite possible to disagree with the developers' decision, and many understandably do, but I have yet to see a compelling argument mustered on either side. It does boil down to preference, it seems to me, regardless of one's position. Or is there something I'm missing?

[Malphas]

I can see inane, but why egotistical? It makes no obvious sense to throw ad homs in an already inane discussion. It's quite possible to disagree with the developers' decision, and many understandably do, but I have yet to see a compelling argument mustered on either side. It does boil down to preference, it seems to me, regardless of one's position. Or is there something I'm missing?

I find it egotistical in the sense that the developers dislike quick reply, so they automatically decree the function has no value and stubbornly refuse to include it, despite the countless requests that have been made over the years - which they are usually quite disdainful of, the fact that it wouldn't be particularly difficult or time consuming to implement (that point is based on comments made by more knowledgeable posters, I personally aren't sure how much work would be involved), and that it could easily be deactivated by default and have no negative bearing on those that share their opinion. It's not intended as a personal sleight against the developers.

[SamG]

The adjectives, I think, give a flavor to the discussion that seems arbitrary if there is no compelling argument. Obviously I include the "brute force" community preference argument in the category of not compelling.

Suppose, for example, that a clear majority of the community wanted the option of displaying topics in a threaded view of some kind. How does it follow that the project must include a threaded view option, else be subject to an unflattering list of adjectives?

[Malphas]

Suppose, for example, that a clear majority of the community wanted the option of displaying topics in a threaded view of some kind. How does it follow that the project must include a threaded view option, else be subject to an unflattering list of adjectives?

Well to be perfectly honest, if the clear majority wanted the option of a threaded view and requested it for several years, then yes I'd be of the opinion that an option should be included, provided it's just that - optional - and will have no negative bearing on those that don't want a threaded view.

Deciding what features should and should not be included is always going to be arbitrary by your definition, because almost any feature will have those that wish to use it, like it, feel it's in line with the project's goals, and those that don't. The compelling argument for a quick reply is as in my previous post; it's been an oft requested feature for a very long period of time now, it's easy to implement, its inclusion has no bearing on those that are against it, and its inclusion as a MOD will not always be satisfactory due to issues with themes and such (I'm summarising my original points at the slight expense of accuracy, so debate them rather than this post).

[SamG]

Deciding what features should and should not be included is always going to be arbitrary by your definition, because almost any feature will have those that wish to use it, like it, feel it's in line with the project's goals, and those that don't.

This I don't see. A message board has a certain function, and to have that function, it has to have certain features. But more to the point, the project's goals outside the essentials are not decided by the community. I'm not saying that as a personal preference, but as a reality. There are "lite" BB products and their communities that eschew phpBB's "bloated" approach. There are "full featured" BB products and their communities that eschew phpBB's "minimalist" approach. It makes no obligatory difference in that context, that I can see, if a majority of phpBB.com users make loud noises one way or another, whether we're talking about quick reply or threaded view or getting rid of "dead weight" like avatars and topic icons.

An often neglected point in the quick reply discussion is that is isn't overhead free. At the very least, if it's a core feature, it presents an obligation to third party theme developers. Since I'm not trying to rebut an inane argument, I don't ask you to see that as a fatal flaw to the idea. I am asking though that the idea be weighed in context.

[Malphas]

This I don't see. A message board has a certain function, and to have that function, it has to have certain features.

It''s almost getting off-track, but the criteria for what constitutes a messageboard isn't much. Like you said there are pieces of minimalist forum software that lack perhaps 90% of the features found in phpBB.

But more to the point, the project's goals outside the essentials are not decided by the community.

Ultimitely no, but good developers will take into consideration the opinions of their software's community.

I'm not saying that as a personal preference, but as a reality. There are "lite" BB products and their communities that eschew phpBB's "bloated" approach. There are "full featured" BB products and their communities that eschew phpBB's "minimalist" approach. It makes no obligatory difference in that context, that I can see, if a majority of phpBB.com users make loud noises one way or another, whether we're talking about quick reply or threaded view or getting rid of "dead weight" like avatars and topic icons.

This is exactly my point about any feature being subject to personal opinion on whether or not it is in line with the project's goals. If anything it's more contentious in phpBB's case since, as you said, it's not really a "lite" board like PunBB, nor an "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" deal like Invision Power Board, and therefore hard to made a solid argument against as well as for the feature. The developer's obviously make the final decision on that, but to simply disregard the preference of the userbase is a mistake in my opinion. And again, if you read the various threads made regarding this over the years, it really does seem as though no consideration at all is ever given by the developers to the idea of adding this feature, which is what the aforemention adjectives are based on - not simply the decision to not include a quick reply.

An often neglected point in the quick reply discussion is that is isn't overhead free. At the very least, if it's a core feature, it presents an obligation to third party theme developers. Since I'm not trying to rebut an inane argument, I don't ask you to see that as a fatal flaw to the idea. I am asking though that the idea be weighed in context.

Yes, of course. If this was the argument against including a quick reply, after proper consideration, then I'd have a lot more respect for the decision, even though I still wouldn't agree it was the right one. But like you said, this point is barely ever mentioned by either side, and the argument against including a quick reply seems to basically be "we don't like quick reply, we believe it encourages lesser quality posts, therefore we're not giving it any consideration regardless of community opinion".