If the comment thread button is missing ...

… it is most likely not a bug. ?

The current owner of the comment may simply not wish for their commentary to be further threaded.


  1. threads
  2. prohibit threading


Holmes says
You may not thread this.

Seth says
hmmm … so how do i prevent comments on this thread?

apparently the ask and yee shall recieve feature is working great today smiley

Seth says
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 06:44:40 [item 20006#45801]
This feature is provided by the completion of the system for extending the properties of any item (thought, comment, tag, group, etc) through the use of the quads table.
hmmm …


Seth says
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 06:50:13 [item 20006#45803]
Shit happens. ? Buy me a beer.

Seth says
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 06:52:27 [item 20006#45806]
As you may turn it on and off at will, you may turn it on while composing and off later. Once off however, it can get threaded until the last owning author turns it back on.
a most useful feature indeed yes

Holmes says
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 07:22:55 [item 20006#45810]
Also note that as things sit, there is a very small window of opportunity for others between creating a comment and marking it no threading. This is unavoidable in the current system model unless the controls are moved to the RTE window itself. Something I don’t want to do right now. Just be quick if you intend to mark it.
seth of group seth 2016-02-17 07:39:25 [item 20006#45817]
i just found that i can rapidly mark a comment as not quotable and then edit it untill i am satisfied, and then mark it threadable.   So if you see one of my comments marked not threadable … wait for it, i may well allow later.  I can use this to avoid the dreaded fork. 
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 07:41:25 [item 20006#45819]
Yes. But I am also happy to simply add another comment. I have been doing that a lot anyway. It often works just as well. It’s still a transcript down the page.
seth of group seth 2016-02-17 07:47:15 [item 20006#45823]
exactly yes.   actually i am of an opinion that, unless the continuation of a thread ackowledges the frame of reference of the prior comment … it should not quote reply to it.   i hate it when that happens.  If i say something, and then you reply in the thread to it from an totally other point of view … usually an opposing one … that pissess me off.  Best to just start your own thread from your different point of view.

Seth says
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 07:49:42 [item 20006#45826]
Also, atomized comments will allow likes to be a property instead of an added thread.

Seth says
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 07:47:59 [item 20006#45824]
It is true that right now threads pass control back and forth and this creates unusual abilities. But someday that will change when comment threads can be atomized. Until then, this model is the best we have.

Holmes says
Mark of group mark 2016-02-17 08:45:01 [item 20006#45848]
I think we need Seth or wizzard to mentograph the rights thingy since a picture can save us a pile of words. newthumbs up
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 08:46:35 [item 20006#45849]
Are you concerned about your rights?
Mark of group mark 2016-02-17 08:55:47 [item 20006#45852]
I was surprised by something I could only delete this AM – maybe whatever else is hidden or lurking. Changing identities. A munged pile of identities saying a munged pile of thingies could be a fun sandbox or look like floodle.me & turn into walled gardens . who knows. I was basically talking to Seth. 
Well, Seth knows little about your rights. The new feature for threads has nothing to do with rights at all. It is based on a new ability to extend any kind of item properties using the quad table.

Your rights are simple. Draw a circle. Put yourself inside. There, done.

Seth says
seth of group seth 2016-02-17 07:43:39 [item 20006#45820]
indidentally  … and this could go either way … but in a personal group, the Person is God.   She should be allowed to mard even sombody else’s owned comment “not threadable”.   That was the kind of permissions that were working on fb1.  Do you allow a person’s rights in there personal group to trump a mere commenter there?  How much like a god is she to be able to curate the direction of commentary?
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 07:46:00 [item 20006#45822]
A comment should only be under the control of the commentor, except for deleting. It is my comment and my business if I want it threaded or not. If you want to capture it and create your own, then you can do what you want with it.
seth of group seth 2016-02-17 07:53:20 [item 20006#45828]
yes that is the opposing view … the commenter’s rights trump the person who originally created the thought in their personal space.  

So that gives the thought’s originator the choice of either deleting the thread entirely ← that must definitely be possible … or allowing a irrelevant thread to propagate on it. 

Like i said, this could go either way.  There will be cases where even you will want to curate some particular thought very carefully.  ← just wait for them … wait for them.

Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 07:56:10 [item 20006#45832]
I would not comment where others had so much control over what I write. However, as I have said before, there are better solutions to the problem you present. One would be the ability to zap a comment over to another place where it can continue in a better context … perhaps leaving a small trail, or footnote, behind so others can follow it over.
seth of group seth 2016-02-17 07:59:49 [item 20006#45833]
well then apparently you won’t participate on the larger web, because that kind of control has been an assumption in the blogosphere since its inception.
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 08:09:14 [item 20006#45839]
Then I don’t know what you are referring to. I have never commented anywhere whence my comment could be modified in any form other than deleting or hiding.
seth of group seth 2016-02-17 09:37:40 [item 20006#45858]

not allowing further commentary in a thread, is a weaker kind of control than just deleting.   so if one can  only curate by deleting,  then one must act Draconian against your comments.   Whereas if they can just go “shut up about that, it is not what i want to see here” then perhaps they can more gently redirect the flow of conversation back to their original thought. 
nathan of group nathan 2016-02-17 09:42:21 [item 20006#45859]
Gentile is much better. Otherwise it is meddling.  
It is not your business, other than to say “I don’t want this here at all”, and then delete it or move it somewhere else.

Holmes says
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 09:08:33 [item 20006#45855]
p.s. Mark. If you keep up with the news in group fbi each morning, or after being away for any length of time, you will know about nearly any change before you run into it. The one about controlling threadability was posted before you came online today. If you don’t want to use the news or river for that, you can simply go to the group and see what’s at the top.
Mark of group mark 2016-02-17 10:56:20 [item 20006#45873]
rights, threads, margins, boundaries, edges, …… whatever … prefer a diagram to a pile of words 

Seth says
Mark of group mark 2016-02-17 11:09:25 [item 20006#45878]
thumbs upgot it
Donatello of group da 2016-02-17 11:55:31 [item 20006#45888]
Yep, it was a little irresistible humor. But on target with the point, being that right now there are no rights issues that have anything to do with you and what you are doing. None of that is changing right(s) now. We need a little bit of rights magic for the co-op thing that is coming online, otherwise rights apply to developers and administrators so that they can operate the domain. General users (minions) have all the same and unspecified rights that they always have and those are not being specified at this time.

See Also

  1. Thought Implementing a cybermind cythot with 16 viewings related by tag "threads".
  2. Thought I would like this capability with threads implementation with 0 viewings related by tag "threads".