question mainly to proponents of quote posts, but anyone can respond:
-
question mainly to proponents of quote posts, but anyone can respond:
what would you say is the semantic relationship between a “quote post” and “the post being quoted”?
Are there any semantics at all, or is it a generic link/reference? What’s the difference between a “quote” and a “link preview”?
By semantic, I mean “meaning”. What does it mean to “quote” something?
If “quote posts” never existed, how would you design an equivalent?
EDIT: got plenty responses! see downthread for conclusion
-
@trwnh I think I’ve said it before but: a quote is just a louder reply
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by [email protected]
This is less a question of behavior or functionality (“here’s how i use quote posts”) and entirely about semantics (“the nature of the relationship between my post and the quoted post is…”)
To use replies as an example: the functionality of replies is that you want to link your post to one or more posts in a series. But the semantics of replies is that you are specifically responding to the thing you’re linking; the “link relationship” between “your post” and “their post” is “reply/response to”
-
@erincandescent i have said verbatim the same thing independently (“loud reply” being equivalent to reply+selfboost) but also there is the “breakout thread” usage (equivalent to changing context)
those are behavioral though. i’m interested in semantics.
also i am slightly changing my opinion because it is possible to reply+quote, and it is possible to quote but not reply, and it is possible to quote while replying to a different thing. but can this be collapsed? does rel=quote deserve to exist
-
@trwnh tbh I don't think there is a big difference between "quote" and "link preview" once it is posted.
The larger difference is that for creating a quote you usually just hit a button and type away, but for a link you need to find the url and copy paste it somewhere. If you'd like to do that often, quote functionality is way more convenient. Also quotes usually give the original poster a notification and links not. -
@trwnh I would say the "the post being quoted" is embedded content within the "quote post", exactly like media or a link preview.
In all of those examples, the post is usually presumed to be "about" the content it's referencing. "Check this image/link/post out. here's what I've got to say about it."
Which makes it odd (to me) that the content being commented on is usually displayed below the text of the post. If I were designing from scratch I'd do the opposite.
-
@trwnh for me, a reply is intended mainly for the person whose post i’m replying to (e.g. this reply is me answering your question for your benefit), whereas a quote is intended mainly for my followers (e.g. quoting a good point and elaborating on it, so that i can spread that point to people who follow me but not OP)
-
Peter Toft Jølvingreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh I think that's really hard to give a complete answer to. To me, the question is similar to "for what reasons might you reference something else as part of a conversation or post"
-
@ConnyDuck so it’s primarily or entirely functional, with no semantic considerations?
i’m generally of the opinion that a “quote post” is just a button for inserting a link preview (could be opengraph!) that changes the thread (like setting a different context) and maybe sends a notification (like sending a Webmention)
so there might not be a reason to define rel=quote or similar property. but i am looking for contrary views.
-
@trwnh A common sort of blog post is a review, sometimes of a post on another blog. They typically include links, quoted texts, screenshots, or video clips of what is being reviewed, so you can understand the review without going directly to the material, but with the explicit option to do so.
A quote post on a microblog is like a review of another microblog post or thread.
As someone else said, it is a deliberate change of context, making it a special case of a reply.
(1/2) -
@tom this is something mastodon wants to do (quote above/first, content below/second) and i agree it’s ergonomically better
semantically it sounds like you’re saying there’s not much to it, it is primarily just a generic link that happens to come with an embedded preview. but there is also the “about” thing.
how would you refine this statement? is it sometimes/generally/always commentary? citation? something else?
-
@trwnh A reviewer does not necessarily expect or want a direct interaction with the author of what is being reviewed.
The deliberate change of context is a weak partitioning of discourse. Particularly in a microblogging context, discussions can branch quickly and become very confusing, so partitioning discourses helps maintain coherence. That's likely to be even more important in a decentralized and federated model.
(2/2) -
@trwnh I don't think there's any one answer to this
One of the most common use cases is commentary or response, a "loud reply" as @erincandescent put it. I think most of the hostile uses of quote posting fall into this category (which is not to say it's always or even usually hostile)
But also sometimes it's just to add emphasis, explanation, or even just personalization to a "boost." i.e., to share something with an explanation of why you're sharing
-
@tech_himbo this seems to still be about functionality not semantics, although it does get at the intended purpose. but semantically you are talking about audience and context, and the same functionality could be modeled by setting a flag to show reply context, or by changing a context, or even being particular about who you include in `to` vs who you include in `cc`.
the question is, is this enough? or does the act also involve a component of “special relationship” between quote and quoted?
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Peter Toft Jølving last edited by
@joelving sure, but everything is a reference. replies are just a special reference that indicate you are responding to something. the attribution is just a special reference indicating authorship.
the thing i’m interested in finding is: how can we describe the “quote” relationship, if such a thing even really exists?
-
@trwnh maybe we have different ideas of semantics. for me, specifying an addressee 100% changes the meaning of an utterance. if i yell “fire” at a rifleman, it means something different than yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. the meaning isn’t just the replied/quoted post plus my post; it also includes the relation my audience has to my post. more broadly: meaning is a function of how an audience relates to an utterance, so signaling the audience and intended relationship changes the meaning
-
@trwnh a further way of looking at this: a quote is a way of replying and expanding audience; of bringing new people into the conversation
-
-
Peter Toft Jølvingreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh Maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to achieve. My point was that it will probably be impossible to enumerate every kind of relationship between two posts. We have "replies", "for example", "see also", "source", "rebuttal", "review", and the list goes on.
Am I missing what you're after? -
@foolishowl interesting. for
> like a review of another microblog post or thread
is there any meaning attached to the relationship, or is the meaning in the act?
> a deliberate change of context, making it a special case of a reply
these are semantically `context` and `inReplyTo`. how does a quote differ from replying to something but changing the context?
