@kimreece I feel it generally unlikely that one would want to reply to more than 3 nodes simultaneously, so I feel that three is the right value for three.

Do you have a reason for setting it to a higher value?

@ColinTheMathmo Just a feeling for how many things my mind would want to pull together and a symmetry as to how things branch out vs. in

@kimreece It seems to be working well. It's still possible to get lost once a discussion becomes big enough.

@kimreece I'm finding it useful for marshalling my thoughts prior to constructing a talk/presentation/workshop.

@ColinTheMathmo

My first questionis: what is the problem to which you see this as the solution.

(I have my own ideas, and see some clear references, some explicit, some not. Not completely clear, Thought I'd ssk.)

@kimreece

@dredmorbius I end up with a lot of email discussion with people top-posting, and no one know hat a given comment is in reply to. So it's intended to allow multiple threads that can subsequently be closed, merged, or continued.

I see it as a great replacement for some types of conversations currently on email, slack, discord, Twitter, and the like.

CC: @kimreece

@dredmorbius I don't see it as replacing them for everything, but there is a class of conversation/discourse/discusson where this is much better.

CC: @kimreece

@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius Torn between 'we already have tree views in forums that aren't awful like fedi' and 'this is halfway to becoming a zettelkasten when it could have gone full bore' ... I feel like having created such an interpretive rift means you've hit a sweet-spot. I'd probably feel it was 'almost like' mind-mapping too if I ever did that... but again, not quite. And that not quite matters.

@kimreece I have three or four long-running discussions ... it's useful to be able to track a single thread, then to search and connect ideas.

I also use it to brain-storm/mind-map subjects for constructing presentations. I can provide examples, or you can look here:

solipsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/DiscDAG

CC: @dredmorbius

@kimreece @dredmorbius

The conversation we're having now would be a candidate for taking place in the system ... we could answer single points, ask specific questions, etc.

@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius I don't find the interface natural; for me it's a visual clutter that disables my information processing. But I could see working with the same data structure in another interface, while collaborators were able to work with it in this interface, as a way of supporting both mind types.

@kimreece The clutter can be reduced substantially by switching to "Neighbourhood Mode" ... but I agree there's significant work needed on some aspects of it. I wrote it, I know its features, and there are times I can't se an easy way to accomplish what I want.

I'm working on that.

CC: @dredmorbius

@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius I often have a hard time processing presentation methods that work fine for other people; this isn't really a software critique on my part.

@kimreece But you won't be the only one, and it's worth knowing, and if something can be done, then doing it.

CC: @dredmorbius

@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius except what if some people are the opposite? :) You're filling a niche. It might not be my niche. That's ok.

@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius Someday I'll write the software that would allow me to most smoothly express what's in my mind... and when I do, I can imagine it easily being interoperable with this.

@kimreece I'd be interested to hear how you would like to see multi-thread discussions presented. Can you sketch, photograph, and post it? DM, if preferred.

CC: @dredmorbius

@kimreece Bookmarking a conversation like this would *also* be easier in something like DiscDAG.

But yes, I'm also off, and have also book-marked.

To be resumed at a later date and time.

CC: @dredmorbius

@dredmorbius My script can take a Mastodon conversation and produce a chart. This one had to be shaped by hand because you didn't sequence your 25 toots and I had to resequence them, but I scripted most of that.

So, ... what's your question?

CC: @kimreece

@dredmorbius I have front ends for Twitter and Mastodon, to scrape/fetch the nodes/tweets/toots and construct the graph. Then I render the graph to a dot format file and run GraphViz on it.

But yes, I can render Mastodon conversations, and/or Twitter conversations.

CC: @kimreece

@ColinTheMathmo Question was regarding input and/or pipeline automation from remote sources, and how much babysitting is involved. Though that was mostly a realisation pitched in the interrogative.

@kimreece

@dredmorbius OK ... I have a command-line script that takes a toot ID as a parameter. It then recursively traces the conversation and produces the SVG. It's not integrated or automated, I run it by hand on conversations I think have got out-of-hand and for which I need navigational assistance.

CC: @kimreece

@ColinTheMathmo That's about what I'd suspected.

And yes, I thought this looked very GraphViz-ish.

@kimreece

@kimreece Having multiple presentations of an internal structure is not only possible, it should be the right thing to do. The DiGraph is one way of presenting the data we have ... how would you prefer it to be presented? Perhaps an alternative could be put on the same underlying data.

CC: @dredmorbius

@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius The navigation difference is one of being outside the graph looking down, versus travelling within the graph. I prefer to navigate within, with a sideview of where I am. Maybe I see less surrounding context at a time that way, but I get less distracted because my own mind doesn't have to keep track of where I am.

@kimreece Like a 1st-person game walking through rooms?

That could be done ...

CC: @dredmorbius

@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius And I like philosophically that it provides visual connection between the pieces. This is the 'making the invisible wires visible' I rant about on my other account, exactly.

@kimreece I didn't see that rant, but yes, making connections and dependencies visible is valuable.

CC: @dredmorbius

@ColinTheMathmo This seems to reflect the client/user freedom problem in open-protocol discussions.

Email being a classic caase for the reasons you've just given: clients (programs, apps, services) can implement (or extend, violate, ignore, ...) standards as they wish. Users can follow / flaut / innovate conventions as well.

Without some mechanism for enforcing standards (or penalising variances), conventions and standards will drift.

@kimreece

@dredmorbius Agreed ... and I have a *lot* to say about that.

But not now ... I need to go soon, early start tomorrow, and it's late here.

CC: @kimreece

@ColinTheMathmo This might also interest @woozle who's into diagramming and structuring conversations.

@kimreece

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mathstodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!