Well, that certainly does look deeply complex, so I have no reason to think it wouldn't create deeply complex discussions.
Kidding aside, one thing I like about it is that it makes discussions start around specific snippets of a source text. That is to say, you begin a thread by selecting a piece of text. I am always very skeptical of top-level comments on HN that don't begin with a quote from the article being discussed—more often than not, I am suspicious that the person even read the text before commenting.
That doesn't address how you'd have conversations around anything except a block of text. Videos, pictures, games or applications, etc.
And they don't solve the toughest UX problem with this kind of pattern, which is how you treat overlapping excerpts: are they part of the same thread, or a new thread, and how do you define the boundary?
But if a new reply doesn't address a single thing in the parent post, but merely the gist of it or adds an entirely new argument, there's no need to quote an exact sentence.
I'm talking about top level comments, which are essentially replies to the linked article itself; I assume you are too. If you're talking about replies to comments, I more or less agree with you.
But to me, if a top level comment doesn't address a single thing in the parent article, it may not be necessary to post it in a thread about that article in the first place. Occasionally I see interesting, novel comments by people who probably haven't read the article, but the most common case is that I see tired retreads of ongoing culture wars, or warmed-over, extremely basic opinions. It's much more interesting to me when HN sometimes engages with a particular text rather than just opening the window and lets the rest of the (godforsaken) internet fly in.
Or, that the commenter gives an opinion about something which is directly addressed in the article. Or, that the commenter has clearly misunderstood the point of the article because they've only read the headline, so they are wasting time arguing about something totally unrelated to it.
Yes, and you can reply to the whole comment as well, instead of a particular text inside it, by using the reply button on the top-right of the comment.
Well, that certainly does look deeply complex, so I have no reason to think it wouldn't create deeply complex discussions.
Kidding aside, one thing I like about it is that it makes discussions start around specific snippets of a source text. That is to say, you begin a thread by selecting a piece of text. I am always very skeptical of top-level comments on HN that don't begin with a quote from the article being discussed—more often than not, I am suspicious that the person even read the text before commenting.
That doesn't address how you'd have conversations around anything except a block of text. Videos, pictures, games or applications, etc.
And they don't solve the toughest UX problem with this kind of pattern, which is how you treat overlapping excerpts: are they part of the same thread, or a new thread, and how do you define the boundary?