111–120 of 233 posts
Fun fact: They granted create threads to everybody by default but granted manage threads to nobody by default. So we had moderators who could delete channels, delete create and modify roles and role permissions, and delete messages as well as ban/kick users, but couldn't manage or delete threads. "public threads" show up in the main channel list to everybody as a sub channel, and everybody had permission to create an…
I have a community for founders from Stanford/Harvard/YC on discord and almost switched to slack for the threads. Thank god for the update!! https://founderscafe.io
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> abominations like slack - which hides streams of conversation behind a wall, making the UX terrible. I'm not usually a defender of Slack but this is one of the things I _like_ about Slack threads. Typically in our rooms every discussion is a thread and if I'm not concerned with that particular discussion there's only ever one message and notification I need to dismiss. If I _am_ concerned with it I can opt in to re…
I like how Slack hides threads. But I do have a few complaints. I don't like that you can't come back later, select a bunch of messages or threads and say "Group into a thread" to clean up people not using threads. Also I kind of hate when it's a week later and someone responds to a thread and you get pinged, but can't find where you got pinged from without clicking the dynamic group to see all thread activity. Also,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lack of threads is something that made me not use Discord before (before they had the replies). There was simply no way to know who someone is replying to, or part of which of the multiple conversations in the channel is that message a part of
That's because it was designed to be a real time chat. When you're having a group conversation, there are no threads. You just keep track in your head what the topics are and who said them and then figure out how the next sentence applies. Discord was modeled after this interaction (and IRC, which was modeled after this interaction).
Content from a "sidebar" conversation is usually taken far enough away from the larger group that it's not bothersome/interrupting the topic of the larger group; but—unlike a whispered aside—these temporary sidebar conversations are still public conversations, and they leak enough signal to the larger group that if someone in the larger group focused on the sidebar conversation, they could pick up the general topic of what's being discussed, and choose to join the sidebar discussion themselves.
Hey, that's threads!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That looks identical to Slack's implementation to my eyes. If you don't mind sharing, what did you like better?
Slack threads don’t (or at least, didn’t; it’s been a couple years) show in the main message feed, they show when you expand the thread into the sidebar. In the feed, it shows the original message with an “n replies” text below it. In Mattermost, new replies show as normal messages in your feed with a bit of context for what they’re replying to, and clicking on the context expands the full thread in a sidebar. I find…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I kind of feel similar. I already thought that the Replies feature was a better compromise for a chat room than Slack's threads (which I hated because so much conversation would just "disappear" from channels only to find out it was still happening in a thread from days or weeks before), but I'm also in several Discords that migrated from Slack and I know how many of my friends have been complaining that they missed…
> They have moderation mentioned front and center, so that feels good to me that they kept it strongly in mind. What's annoying about this is it was sprung, default on, with no warning. I'm a mod (not the owner) of a server that got them, and we weren't given the permissions to disable them from @everyone, only the admin can do that at first. And he's not currently been on because of time zone differences. Which mean…
Sadness. I use Google Chat at work and I absolutely hate threads there. Maybe the Discord implementation is better, but I'm not holding my breath.
I may be mixing up my chat apps, but isn't Google Chat 100% threads? I know one of the things under MS Teams is like that too and don't like it either. I like the idea of having temporary side conversations with a time limit. There should never be an "eternal" thread, just things that come and go.
It has both now, but each room is either 100% threads or no threads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They have moderation mentioned front and center, so that feels good to me that they kept it strongly in mind. What's annoying about this is it was sprung, default on, with no warning. I'm a mod (not the owner) of a server that got them, and we weren't given the permissions to disable them from @everyone, only the admin can do that at first. And he's not currently been on because of time zone differences. Which mean…
They've given that choice to servers that are labeled "Community Servers" at least (giving them until mid-August before it is forced on by default) which will help some of the largest servers, but yes they maybe should have given that a wider option to the medium/smaller servers too.
Threads suck!
I know this is being downvoted, but I find it genuinely interesting how much negative fervor there is towards threads. So it's a useful contribution to me! I use Slack threads everyday. I've only heard of one person in our org (or in any org I've been in prior that used slack) who had strong opinions about threads. Thanks for the very genuine opinion. Perhaps I'll start refining my own opinions about chat app threads…