Have a dedicated button to separate the old comment system from the new system

[shinya78]

Since someone might as well make the suggestion...

Ever since the complaints about the button that used to direct the old comments to the forums are now being used by the new system, and that the old chapter discussion comments are now being buried underneath it. I suggest adding a new button, not unlike the old one, that would serve the purpose of separating the new integrated comments from the old forum comments.

The old button could function the same as before, just rebranded to something different, while the new button would serve for the new integrated comments. For example, forum [Discuss]ions vs casual [Comment]s. (Or use the new button for the old system, whichever is easier for the devs.)

This is effectively a suggestion to rebrand the old chapter comments in the forums reader as DISCUSS(ions), as an example, to differentiate it from the new system that is taking over as the new COMMENT(s).

This would allow users to quickly comment using the new system, while keeping the old system just as easily accessible as it used to for forum discussions, ensuring that both systems could co-exist without so much a fuss.

"Can we have two buttons?": No, it's confusing, and that will lead to a further split of platform vs forums.

Confusing? How?
All this does is give easy access to what still exists as the old forum comments. The sub-forum where these old comments are located is already called Chapter Discussions for that specific reason. Rebranding the old system to something else would clearly tell the user what to expect, light comments about the chapter vs deep discussions about the chapter. Sure, anyone could use either system for whatever purpose with varying degrees of success, but having both options being openly available right in front for everyone to use is better than burying the old function underneath the new one. Users will naturally trickle down to whichever system they want for whichever purpose.

If the idea was having both alive as mentioned by @Bartolumiu

the plan is to keep both the new comments and the forums alive at the same time, with each having its own purpose.
Title and chapter comments on the new system, and general chatting and discussion here in the forums (so yeah, lurkers, you can keep lurking as you've been doing up until now).

Then this should be a no-brainer.

edit:

Hi, I received a developer reply regarding this suggestion, I'll be posting it here:

Have two buttons: one for forums and one for on-site comments on the chapter list items

Unlikely. It'll be confusing. Easy example: "Interesting chapter, let's read the comments... wait, there are two kinds of comments?"

Once again, the reason they give is that it'll be confusing. Citing that their example user would be "confused when they see that there are two kinds of comments now."

How is this a valid reason when:

• Implementing the [new comments system] while keeping the [old "comments" system](forum discussions) alive already establish the fact that there are indeed two kinds of comments now.
• They acknowledged that the button shouldn't open the reader if users only want to read the comments. This is the very same function the old button had, but for chapter discussions in the forums instead, the function already existed.

Hi, I'll post here a reply I received from the developers regarding this suggestion:

Do not open the reader if you just want to read the comments

"Valid. We will be exploring ways of doing this."

• They acknowledged that "read # older comments" should be renamed to indicate that these are the comments in the forums, which are separate from the new system. Surely their example users would see this, become confused, and ask "wait, there are two kinds of comments?".

Hi, I'll be posting here a developer reply regarding this suggestion:

Be explicit about the fact that older comments exist in the forums to prevent confusing it as if you're going to be navigated to the next page of comments.

"Valid. We'll be discussing on the wording side of things and see if we can be explicit with the fact that it is indeed the forums."

• Having two buttons would quickly let users choose whether to access and use the new system[Comments], or the old system[Forums] with a single click. Something the current setup allows for the new system, but an extra step is needed to be done for the old system. Was the plan to make the forum discussions more obscure than ever, by making it one click further away?

The only other valid reason left that I could think of that doesn't go into tinfoil hat territory that would legitimize their claim, is if, and this is a big IF:

• They assumed when the users asked for two buttons, it meant they should share the exact same icons.

To which I say, it should've been obvious that the icons should be different, without the need for us users to spell it out for them. Even then, making a new icon if none currently exists, shouldn't be out of the question.

If they still claim the same reason for refusal, or change goalposts, then by that point maybe it's due time to get the tinfoil hats.

edit:
Mind you, a dedicated button to redirect to the forums when inside the reader already exists, it is even explicitly stated that it will lead to the forums.

Renamed "Read N older comments" to a more explicit "Read N older comments in the forums," as with other relevant forum-related buttons.

All this suggestion asks is to give users the same thing before getting inside the reader.

 

[mgRdr]

Guess the would-be result of that, if that is indeed the case... Failure In Communication.

It's not a failure if it works as intended from their perspective

 

[shinya78]

It's not a failure if it works as intended from their perspective

But here's the thing, communication is a two-way street, you can't just info dump at some obscure corner without leaving glaring signs that people can't miss that points to its location and call it a day while thinking that's a success. That's a mission waiting to fail successfully, if that's the case.

If the intent was to not inform people and call that a success, then they achieved less than nothing, they earned the ire of their own userbase.

It's a failure in communication if the majority didn't get the message from the users perspective.

 

[mgRdr]

But here's the thing, communication is a two-way street

No, not really, not necessarily.

If the intent was to not inform people and call that a success, then they achieved less than nothing, they earned the ire of their own userbase.

There's like five of us in these threads still bitching about it, and maybe a handful of forum members left MangaDex over it, whatever the ire they caused, they feel like they can weather it. The release of the comments panel in its current state was always going to earn them ire regardless of how it was going to be communicated, yet they had strong reasons to push on with it anyway.
Everyone who really wanted to know got their fuckoff answers from the forums, the rest, those who wouldn't go out of their way to look for the info, they know as much as the staff sees they need to know.

It's a failure in communication if the majority didn't get the message from the users perspective.

What are the consequences of the majority not getting the message? And what would be the consequences of them being told the full picture? Dunno, but whatever the consequences of each scenario are, the scenario we've got was deemed more favourable from their perspective.

 

[shinya78]

No, not really, not necessarily.

No, not really? Does having the intended recipient not receiving the message count as a successful communication in your book? One could argue that the Notice Board served as the "glaring" signboard that people were meant to not miss, but it has been weightweighed and was found wanting.

maybe a handful of forum members left MangaDex over it, whatever the ire they caused,

Oh, I wonder what could've caused such an exodus? Surely it's not the failure of communicating to the masses that the point of this whole thing is basically a paid beta test, which caused users to prematurely ejaculate outcries of "comments are now being permanently paywalled" and whatnot. That couldn't be the reason, surely. /sarcasm

What are the consequences of the majority not getting the message? And what would be the consequences of them being told the full picture? Dunno, but whatever the consequences of each scenario are, the scenario we've got was deemed more favourable from their perspective.

By that did you mean the majority that does not care about commenting in the first place, and are just as likely to not comment in the new system? Would it truly matter if they're bothered with it or not?

Truth of the matter is, the people that already comment in the forums found out that they are now suddenly unable to, and without seeing the proper explanation as to what happened, they immediately call out the team that in their point of view, took away their privileges. With the seemingly "head-in-the-sand" approach the team used (ignoring/locking threads, etc.) to address the claims not helping, no wonder some folks got fed up with them and just went and left.

Forum users might be the minority, but that does not change the fact that what occurred is a result of a "failure in communication".

 

[mgRdr]

Does having the intended recipient not receiving the message count as a successful communication in your book?

If the goal of sending out the message is to appear like communication is happening all the while not disclosing more information than they want the recipient to know, then yes, yes it does, at least if I assume their perspective. If they opened their mouth to say something, it doesn't mean they intended for us to learn anything from it.

no wonder some folks got fed up with them and just went and left.

Oh, I wonder what could've caused such an exodus?

handful

As in, five or less, which they found an acceptable amount of "exodus". You seem to be severely overestimating how much anyone cares about a handful of folks leaving the platform.

By that did you mean the majority that does not care about commenting in the first place, and are just as likely to not comment in the new system?

I am talking exclusively about us forumgoers.

Surely it's not the failure of communicating to the masses that the point of this whole thing is basically a paid beta test

Hell, some might have even paid the subscription because they thought that's the only way they can comment again. But no, it's not just a beta test, because after the beta test is over, the platform is gonna change for everyone, and while sure everyone will be able to use the new comments, the way we interact with the platform and the way we conduct discourse - it's all gonna change, and staff don't really want to shine a spotlight on those impending changes and the possible reasonings behind them.

 

[shinya78]

If the goal of sending out the message is to appear like communication is happening all the while not disclosing more information than they want the recipient to know, then yes, yes it does, at least if I assume their perspective. If they opened their mouth to say something, it doesn't mean they intended for us to learn anything from it.

So in your book, conveying a nothing burger to obfuscate information that the recipient should be notified of counts as a successful communication in their perspective. Got it.

That still makes it a failure in the eyes of the recipient however, as it breeds misunderstandings when the proverbial fecal matter hits the fan. See what I meant by it needing to be a "two-way street"?

If they managed to explicitly notify the users instead, the users might not like it, but at the very least they successfully communicated their intent clearly. That would not be a "failure in communication", but a "disagreement in direction".

As in, five or less, which they found an acceptable amount of "exodus". You seem to be severely overestimating how much anyone cares about a handful of folks leaving the platform.

"/Sarcasm" go r/Woooosh. I seemed to have severely overestimated how much people nowadays could still recognize when someone is telling a sarcastic joke or not.

I am talking exclusively about us forumgoers.

After all is said and done? Those that stayed continued using the forums as usual, and beta testers continued using the forums as usual as well. These are the majority of forum users, and not the ones that got affected to the point of leaving.

Hell, some might have even paid the subscription because they thought that's the only way they can comment again. But no, it's not just a beta test, because after the beta test is over, the platform is gonna change for everyone, and while sure everyone will be able to use the new comments, the way we interact with the platform and the way we conduct discourse - it's all gonna change, and staff don't really want to shine a spotlight on those impending changes and the possible reasonings behind them.

Tinfoil hat theories on the intent aside, it doesn't change the fact that there were misunderstandings such as "X is A,B,C" as a result of the lackluster effort in conveying that "X is actually X,Y,Z and not A,B,C". If that is not a "failure" in conveying correct information by any sense of the word, then what does that word even mean?

 

[mgRdr]

So in your book, conveying a nothing burger to obfuscate information that the recipient should be notified of counts as a successful communication in their perspective. Got it.

should

In the first place, they don't owe us answers, or at least they don't feel like they do. But yeah, that's exactly right, it is successful from their perspective if it leads to their desired outcome.

then what does that word even mean?

Here are the terms I am operating with:

	Communicator wanted to inform	Communicator wanted to misinform
Recipient got informed	Clear-cut success in communication	Scenario too hypothetical to consider
Recipient got misinformed	Clear-cut failure in communication	Success in communication from the perspective of the communicator Failure in communication from the perspective of the recipient

That would not be a "failure in communication", but a "disagreement in direction".

And guess which of the two is a preferable scenario from their perspective? "I don't understand where this is going" and "I don't like where this is going" are two different conclusions with two different courses of action. For one, the former means you can still be hopeful that things will turn out alright, while the later means you can start packing you bags.

"/Sarcasm" go r/Woooosh.

Did you want to convey any thoughts with your sarcasm, or were you facetious just for the sake of it?

Tinfoil hat theories on the intent aside

Well, in face of apparent refusal to communicate, do you have any better theories, or are you sticking to the theory that they are fumbling communication out of sheer social awkwardness? At some point, even Hanlon's razor will get dull.

 

[shinya78]

In the first place, they don't owe us answers, or at least they don't feel like they do. But yeah, that's exactly right, it is successful from their perspective if it leads to their desired outcome.

Irrelevant as would-be recipients still got misinformed.

I don't even know why we're going this deep into this topic, as I merely stated that there is indeed, failure between participants, of which you yourself acknowledged in your own table.

Here are the terms I am operating with:

	Communicator wanted to inform	Communicator wanted to misinform
Recipient got informed	Clear-cut success in communication	Scenario too hypothetical to consider
Recipient got misinformed	Clear-cut failure in communication	Success in communication from the perspective of the communicator Failure in communication from the perspective of the recipient

And guess which of the two is a preferable scenario from their perspective? "I don't understand where this is going" and "I don't like where this is going" are two different conclusions with two different courses of action. For one, the former means you can still be hopeful that things will turn out alright, while the later means you can start packing you bags.

I don't know how me merely implying that your theory, should it be true, still resulted in "failures in communication" led to where we are right now, but I'm guessing we both ended up in a small "failure in communication" ourselves as it seems we're not even in the same frequency. I never even stepped deep into the tinfoil hat territory in the first place. Your title checks out, I guess.

Did you want to convey any thoughts with your sarcasm, or were you facetious just for the sake of it?

Other than stating in a roundabout way that "misunderstandings occurred as a result of failure in communication (regardless of intent)"? There's no other meaning in it.

Well, in face of apparent refusal to communicate, do you have any better theories, or are you sticking to the theory that they are fumbling communication out of sheer social awkwardness? At some point, even Hanlon's razor will get dull.

Dunno bro, that's your territory. I only stated what's already there.

 

[mgRdr]

of which you yourself acknowledged in your own table.

The same table also says that the very same scenario was also a success in communication, success which is way more descriptive of the situation, and success which you dismiss because an irrelevant party considers this success a failure.

I don't know how me merely implying that your theory, should it be true, still resulted in "failures in communication" led to where we are right now

There are two distinct scenarios both of which you label a "failure in communication", and if we apply this term in reverse, the term would almost always imply one scenario and almost never the other. If the term is meant to be equally applicable to these two mutually-exclusive scenarios, then it might as well mean nothing at all. If all you wanted was to argue about semantics, well I could see there being a better system of semantics than the one you promote.

Other than stating in a roundabout way that "misunderstandings occurred as a result of failure in communication (regardless of intent)"?

You're wrong on that accord then, because, in all likelyhood, the people who left didn't do so because of a misunderstanding.

Your title checks out, I guess.

We're in the land of ad hominems now, eh?

 

[shinya78]

The same table also says that the very same scenario was also a success in communication, success which is way more desriptive, and success which you dismiss because an irrelevant party considers this success a failure.

The same table also says that the very same scenario was also a failure in communication, failure which caused misunderstandings, and failure which you dismiss because another party considers this failure a success.

Just because it's a success for one doesn't mean it's a success for all. That's all I'm saying, why are we even arguing about this?

There are two distinct scenarios both of which you label a "failure in communication", and if we apply this term in reverse, the term would almost always imply one scenario and almost never the other. If the term is meant to be equally applicable to these two mutually-exclusive scenarios, then it might as well mean nothing at all. If all you wanted was to argue about semantics, well I could see there being a better system of semantics than the one you promote.

My brother in Christ, I simply stated that there is a "failure in communication". You're the one who started arguing about semantics by saying "it's not a failure".

You're wrong on that accord then, because, in all likelyhood, the people who left didn't do so because of a misunderstanding.

You've completely missed the sarcastic joke then, I only mentioned misunderstandings occurred, and you took my sarcasm as if I'm directly implying that is what I thought their reason for leaving is.

We're in the land of ad hominems now, eh?

You're really going there, aren't you? At this point, I think you just want to twist what I'm saying just for the sake of argument.

 

[BobBiscuit]

You're really going there, aren't you? At this point, I think you just want to twist what I'm saying just for the sake of argument.

I don't intend to get involved in the bulk of your argument, but I am going to step in and say he's right on this point. That was an ad hominem attack, even if you tried to do it indirectly by not saying the words yourself.

 

[shinya78]

I don't intend to get involved in the bulk of your argument, but I am going to step in and say he's right on this point. That was an ad hominem attack, even if you tried to do it indirectly by not saying the words yourself.

Can you blame me, though? I mean it's obvious that we're not even in the same frequency anymore after the first two posts. I even pointed that out for him, we should've stopped then and there. If he saw that as an attack and wanted to continue the argument, that's on him. I'm not the one that went "I am inclined to believe that it is less of a failure in communication and more of a deliberate decision to not do wider more detailed comms to the community."

I am grateful to kouyo and Ataraxic for giving us some answers in these threads, but there hasn't been any other communication done by anyone else in any other form regarding the release, none that I could see on MangaDex, and it has been 9 days since the release and 7 days since my suggestion to do a proper address was looked at by staff, so I am inclined to believe that it is less of a failure in communication and more of a deliberate decision to not do wider more detailed comms to the community.

All I stated was "it would result in failure of communication", and he ran with it when I mentioned "If the intent was to not inform people and call that a success, then they achieved less than nothing, they earned the ire of their own userbase.".

 

[shinya78]

Here's an abridged timeline:

• mgRdr: states they're "inclined to believe that is less of a failure in communication and more of a deliberate decision to not do wider more detailed comms to the community."
• me: that theory, if true, would result in Failure in Communication
• mgRdr: not a failure, if one side think it is a success <-first post of page 10
• me: two-way street, the other side should also matter
• mgRdr: no, not really, not necessarily <- steps into tinfoil territory by adding "Dunno, but whatever the consequences of each scenario are, the scenario we've got was deemed more favourable from their perspective."
• me: are you saying people failing to get the message is a success? <-adds sarcastic joke while mentioning misunderstandings that caused outcries
• mgRdr: if one side sees it as a success, yes <- completely misses sarcastic joke
• me: accepts one side sees it as a success, but refutes it's only a success for one side <-points out that "failure" still exists and therefore it's shouldn't be treated fully as not a failure
• mgRdr: shows table that displays there are failures for the other participant in their tinfoil hat scenario <-goes deeper in tinfoil territory, asks if sarcasm has any meaning other than for "teh lulz"
• me: declares if one side has failure, then the scenario has failure and should be considered as one <-notices the topic got derailed at one point and hinted that we should stop while adding a cheeky remark on them stepping deeper into tinfoil hat territory and how their title "checks out", confirms I only mentioned "failure exist because misunderstanding exists" and most of the joke was for "teh lulz"
• mgRdr: insists that if one side succeeds, then it is a success <- goes on about semantics, still misses the point of my earlier joke accusing me of thinking people left only because of a misunderstanding, accuses ad hominem attack
• me: returns to sender with their same argument <-points out they started it by calling it "not a failure", points out that they completely missed the joke, points out that they probably just want to argue at this point
• BobBiscuit: only points out the part that it was an ad hominem
• me: points out that the conversation no longer meshed at one point and we should've stopped earlier <-also points out that mgRdr was the one who went deeper into tinfoil hat territory and shouldn't feel attacked for it
• You Are Here

edit:
Name fixed, sorry @BobBiscuit , my bad.

 

[kouyo]

Hi everyone, I'm seeing the thread is derailing into something completely unrelated to the OP, remember rule 3.5 of our forums

Don't derail threads with what can otherwise be discussed privately in DMs or in a separate thread.

If this continues I'm gonna be seen forced to lock the conversation in this thread and that's no good for anyone...

You are entitled to have an opinion on how things are being run nowadays, but this is not the thread for that.

 

[shinya78]

Hi everyone, I'm seeing the thread is derailing into something completely unrelated to the OP, remember rule 3.5 of our forums

If this continues I'm gonna be seen forced to lock the conversation in this thread and that's no good for anyone...

You are entitled to have an opinion on how things are being run nowadays, but this is not the thread for that.

Let it be known that I, for one, had already lost the intention of continuing since the 8th post of page 10.

But I guess people can't help but slowly derail the topic when there's hardly anything coming from the staff/devs addressing the suggestions ever since Ataraxic's dev post in a different thread, whether they'll be willing to come to a compromise now, now that people started showing their displeasure and/or slowed down using the new system or what have you.

edit:
Sorry @BobBiscuit , I mis-wrote your name, my bad.

 

[grrman]

I'm glad that MD is getting pretty clear feedback (read: getting absolutely bodied) that no one likes the new comments, which will hopefully make the request of an alternative button obsolete.