• Quote Test
    48 replies, posted
Hello this is a quote. You shouldn't see this in quoted text. But you should see when I mention 's sexy name.
Testing
That's better
do mentions not show up to avoid a mention fest when someone quotes you? I bet that will end up confusing.
if you're gonna condense images in quotes, maybe do something like [image] instead of a bare url
Wait why is there an apostrophe among the spoilered text? Shouldn't that be part of the spoiler?
They could just be rendered to plain text.
It seems quoting breaks everything. I bet it breaks code too.
Code doesn't even carry over at all.
I don't want any parsing in quotes, I want them to be plain text. That's why there's no quotes in quotes, or code in quotes.
Does code even become overflown and expandable at some point (similar to large quotes)? If not then it might make sense to not allow it to be quotable.
If there's not going to be parsing, will there at least be jump to quoted post?
It would be nice if the x posted: did link to the post in question. Pretty much all forum software out there does this.
I have to be honest, the inability to do anything with quotes and the lack of parsing makes this quoting system one of the worst I've used. It's absurdly limited and you haven't given a reason why you want it this way.
Why do you need quotes to be fully parsed anyways?
There will!
Does Quill not support nested items? I noticed quotes just have a "text" attribute that's just a string and not it's own object.
Not necessarily fully parsed. It's just that I think links should be parsed and images should be shown (but shrunk), so you don't have to scroll back to the quoted post just to click a link. Right now spoiler tags aren't parsed in quotes, effectively rendering them useless. It just seems pointless to me to make users manually go back to previous posts to see something when it could easily be put in the quote with no downsides.
Sounds like the worst quote system you’ve ever used
What's the point in a quote if it's not verbatim? It's essentially the forum equivalent of paraphrasing. You're losing out on context. Hell, if you post a link someone seeing just the quote might not even know there's a link, and if that link is important to the conversation it makes the reader miss out on important information.
Why do images need to be linked if long quotes are shortened anyways?
then you just click the "garry posted:" link and get to the original opst
Garry made spoiler tags go full asterisks when you quote. So quoting spoilers isn't a big deal now as they still remain hidden.
Why do images need to be removed if they're going to be hidden by quote shortening? When a person expands the quote they should see exactly what was originally posted. Not currently possible. Also doesn't address that people might not know a link exists. Having to go back to the original post to see a link which could be parsed in the quote is a waste of time.
The things you’re complaining about have been fixed, that’s what this thread was about. quotes are plain text versions of the post you’re quoting. Deal with it.
Testing, in mobile (Android, chrome, stock keyboard). Can't delete a quote from my post - pressing backspace brings me out of keyboard. Also I can't place my cursor before the top quote - IIRC this is the case on desktop as well.
I think named links should show their urls when quoted rather than their names:
I think quotes should be text only but still include hyperlinks and benign @mentions (i.e. clickable but don't trigger a notification). Images and multimedia (YouTube etc) can be replaced with links using placeholder text like said. The propose of quotes is debatable, some say it's just used to maintain the flow of the conversation and indicate who's taking to who. But at times, a quote is used to serve a bigger purpose, like using an old quote to answer someone's question. And in some cases you'd want to do that with a quote from a different thread even, which AFAIK isn't possible right now. With BBCode it was easy, just quote someone in one thread and copy the output to another. I think the system should support as many use cases as possible without being interfering.
One major problem I'm seeing here is that this makes quoting parts of a spoliered text useless, since there is no way to figure out which part is quoted (all you see is asterisks)
Why waste time doing this when you didn't have to prior
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.