The Subject field

[Starfighter]

I've noticed that when a thread is created, the Subject field gives the thread its name. All is well. When someone posts in the thread and adds a subject of their own, the thread is called that in the "Last post" section. Is this really how it should be?

I've seen it several times but the latest example of this would be:

[sixeyes]

I think this is just how phpBB does things. Seen it on other forums as well, especially confusing when threads are merged together.

I mean the column is called "last post", so that's not the thread title, it's the last post subject. Checks out, but very confusing yeah, because i absolutely read it as the thread title.

[Starfia]

I was about to start my own thread on the subject field even before noticing I was the example. ^ ^

My remark was simply that the interface is unambiguous that the subject field is available per post, not per topic, and that each reply is a "post." And that even so, I've observed almost no repliers actually using the subject field to specify what they're replying about. (In that example, I was replying to ask a moderator about their phrasing as used within a broader conversation.)

If no one customizes the subject of their replies and instead allows them to auto-fill with the topic's subject, then the headers as viewed from a topic's page become superfluous clutter and arguably needn't exist. So I wanted to point that out lest repliers were unthinkingly ignoring the field who might actually want to leverage it.

Is this really how it should be?

Starfighter – I'm gathering you're not contesting any of that, but rather questioning the relative usefulness of a "last post" column on the index page rather than a "last updated topic" column or something. (I presume "active topics" is for people who specifically want that, and they can simply bookmark that rather than bookmarking the index page.)

Checks out, but very confusing yeah, because i absolutely read it as the thread title.

I suppose it's confusing if you're misled to think "last post" means "last updated topic." It sounds like that happened to you momentarily, with the ultimate result of permanently increasing your awareness. I'm guessing the same self-correction would work for everyone, so it doesn't strike me as a serious problem.

But it leaves the question: if people are regularly misled like that, even when the column is clearly labelled, then what is doing the misleading? Why are people mistaking post titles for topic titles?

To loop back to my intention in posting about it, I guess it's simply a symptom of people being out of the habit of customizing the subject field when replying. People don't perceive posts as having their own titles and mistake them for their their topic's titles. I think a "last post" column containing items like "[title of reply] in [title of topic's originating post]" could be worth the clarity on the index page, but only if people generally were in that habit. If they weren't, then it would just be more clutter.

(Not that I'm calling for anyone to rewrite phpBB.)

[sixeyes]

If no one customizes the subject of their replies and instead allows them to auto-fill with the thread's subject, then the headers as viewed from a thread's page become superfluous clutter and arguably needn't exist. So I wanted to point that out lest repliers were unthinkingly ignoring the field who might actually want to leverage it.

Hehe, spot on... took me two rereads of your post to notice that the subject was changed ...I suppose on a place where each post has a lot of bling, it's easy to tune out things other than the actual text. And then if i'm not trained to also read the subject field, well, away it goes...

I noticed that if i just replied to the thread in general, it pre-filled the thread subject (OP subject?) - but when quoting a post it picked the subject of that particular post instead.

[Starfia]

I noticed that if i just replied to the thread in general, it pre-filled the thread subject (OP subject?) - but when quoting a post it picked the subject of that particular post instead.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I'm talkin' about. There's at least some conscious intent behind this stuff.

[RogerMexico]

I always thought it was weird the phpBB did that when basically no other forum software did.

[sixeyes]

Might be modeled on emails? (Or am i having a "guy who only ever used email" moment)

[Starfia]

Might be modeled on emails?

That's what I'd gathered – "posts" are like e-mail messages in having their own subjects and bodies, apparently.