Nostr Web Client

You can’t search by subject (not 1 character), and you can find the tagged events for the threads snuck more easily and bulletproof via #e queries

unclebobmartin 2y ago

See Below.

From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 08:17:01 on wss://atlas.nostr.land

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

>---------------

>You can’t search by subject (not 1 character),

I'm not sure what you mean by (not 1 character). Certainly a client can include the subject tag in a search. More-speech does that now.

>and you can find the tagged events for the threads snuck more easily and bulletproof via #e queries

#e queries are good when you want to search for notes that refer to other notes. However, I also want to search for notes based on the contents of subject (and the note itself). So I want to put any note with "CNN" in the subject into my "CNN" tab. I can't do that with an #e tag.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

I agree that CC and From is just duplications from a Nostr-native structures (#e, #p) and should not be rewriten in the reply note. There is no need for it.

This is really ugly.

unclebobmartin 2y ago

See below.

From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 09:47:17 on wss://atlas.nostr.land

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]

>---------------

> I agree that CC and From is just duplications from a Nostr-native structures (#e, #p) and should not be rewriten in the reply note. There is no need for it.

Ah, but there is. First of all when I reply I can _see_ who that reply is mentioning. Secondly, I can remove those references if I want to change the CC list. For example, if I didn't want to bother nostr:jb55 with this reply, I could either delete the CC or change it to use the nostr:jb55 reference.

> This is really ugly.

Ugliness is the purview of the client, not the message.

PABLOF7z 2y ago

It is the preview of the message because you’re constructing it in a way this world be incredibly difficult for a client to parse all this ambiguous text into something sensible

Check out nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn ‘s coracle or nostr:npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35c ‘a gossip to see how they allow you to, natively, add/remove p tags

PABLOF7z 2y ago

* purview

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 10:35:06 on wss://relay.damus.io

> ...you’re constructing it in a way [that makes it] incredibly difficult for a client to parse all this ambiguous text into something sensible.

It's a free nostr, you don't have to parse it. I'm certainly not parsing it.

The bottom line is that there are going to be a vast number of different clients. Each client will be pursuing it's own particular use cases for nostr. Some of those use cases will be relatively incompatible with others. C'est la vie! The last thing we want is some kind of fixed UI standard that every client must adhere to. Such a standard would almost certainly restrict the number of possible use cases and make nostr a lot less free.

So, if you don't want to propogate the subject tag, don't propogate it. If you don't want to parse the embedded replies, don't parse them. If you want to use highligher, use highlighter. It's a free nostr.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]

CC: #[9]

Mike Dilger ☑️ 2y ago

Gossip used to do this, but somehow it got lost in the UI shuffle. I would like to see it come back one day, the ability to at least untag those people you mention in the note, so they aren't alerted that you are talking about them.

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: mikedilger at 06/11 17:50

> Gossip used to do this, but somehow it got lost in the UI shuffle. I would like to see it come back one day, the ability to at least untag those people you mention in the note, so they aren't alerted that you are talking about them.

#[4] made a recommendation that I'm giving serious thought to. His idea was to put the CCs into a seperate text edit window so that they can still be editted by the user, but are not textually included in the message.

I can see the logic behind that. The CCs in the text can be an annoyance to those who are viewing messages on a smaller screen. On the other hand, the inclusion of CCs in written communications is traditional in the extreme, and has a very deep utility. It is good for people to have the CC list thrown in their face so that they realize whom they are communicating with -- and about.

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]

CC: #[9]

CC: #[10]

Jonathan 2y ago

But most clients already display the CCs when they display the p tags natively in the client. Perhaps if you’re on a client that doesn’t already show that information it might be helpful but maybe a better solution would be to display more information about the event rather than duplicating it in the content and tags.

Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

You should do that on the e and p tags, not on the text, like social clients do. You can see who you are replying to and remove it on amethyst without having to pollute the text.

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 10:35:39 on wss://relay.nostriches.org

> You should do that on the e and p tags, not on the text, like social clients do. You can see who you are replying to and remove it on amethyst without having to pollute the text.

I don't mind "polluting the text" because I don't consider it "pollution". I also don't think the e and p tags are sufficient to give me what I want. And...it's a free nostr; what I _should_ do is up to me. .

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]

Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

Since I coded the same thing you have with e and p tags, I think you are wrong. And I don't even have the power of a desktop toake it work.

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 11:07:47 on wss://relay.nostriches.org

> Since I coded the same thing you have with e and p tags, I think you are wrong. And I don't even have the power of a desktop toake it work.

It is your right to think I'm wrong. It's a free nostr. It is my right to persist in my wrongness. It's a free nostr.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]

Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

Yep, you do you. Just know that posts from your clients look very ugly and difficult to read in all others.

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: -VitorPamplona<-D... at 06/11/23 11:24:22 on wss://relay.nostriches.org

> Yep, you do you. Just know that posts from your clients look very ugly and difficult to read in all others.

I look at that screenshot and I think: "My, how lovely!".

Anyway, I'd like to thank you for this discussion. I actually have been listening to you. It's just that it's been so long since I've had a good debate on a free social network that I couldn't resist poking the bear a little.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

PABLOF7z 2y ago

I mean that’s obvious, no one is arguing that you should be restricted in any way, we’re discussing best approaches, but the “nostr is free, I’ll do what I want” is certainly a conversation stopper.

The same way you consider the Twitter way of thinking lacking creativity I think this way of email-thinking is falling short of what it could be.

Fwiw I agree with the idea of using nostr content in ways way beyond the Twitter use case and in particular I’m interested in the email-like mode (I wrote an email client when I was a 12 so I’ve always been very interested in the format)

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 11:14:37 on wss://nos.lol

> ...The “nostr is free, I’ll do what I want” is certainly a conversation stopper.

Good. I'm glad you figured that out.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

PABLOF7z 2y ago

Lol, you could have said so from the beginning!

🙌

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 11:33:58 on wss://nos.lol

> Lol, you could have said so from the beginning!

> 🙌

What fun would that have been? Be well.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

Jonathan 2y ago

I’m fine with the early email style responses, I’ve always thought it was a good format, but could you perhaps change the header? Maybe don’t include the relay, time, or CCs since those can more easily be embedded in the event instead of the content?

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: (jsm) at 06/11 11:38

> I’m fine with the early email style responses, I’ve always thought it was a good format, but could you perhaps change the header? Maybe don’t include the relay, time, or CCs since those can more easily be embedded in the event instead of the content?

I've shortened the header significantly. And I've moved the CC:s to the end. For the time being I want to leave the CC:s in place because I don't want to create a horrible UI with checkboxes to select who should be mentioned. I just edit the list and the mentions tagged accordingly.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]

Jonathan 2y ago

Thank you, that looks so much better.

What about changing the more-speech UI to allow editing the list of CCs that goes into the event as text instead of doing that editing in the content? It seems like you’re editing the content so you can edit the tags instead of editing the tags themselves.

unclebobmartin 2y ago

> What about changing the more-speech UI to allow editing the list of CCs that goes into the event as text[...]

Editing text with a keyboard and mouse is pretty easy. I am really loath to create a special UI with a bunch of checkboxes for each CC.

In this thread I've been leaving all the headers and CCs in place because the thread was _about_ those headers and CCs. Typically, however, I simply ^A and delete them before I start composing. In this reply, for example, I simply editted out the header and CCs.

Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

This is how the reply renders when you add the space after >

Super nice!

PABLOF7z 2y ago

🙌

Jonathan 2y ago

That looks much slicker and doesn’t include any repetitive information that clients already show.

What I meant for the CCs is editing the CCs in a separate text field (no annoying and slow checkboxes) as plain text and then using that separate text to change the tags instead of doing the editing in the content field.

unclebobmartin 2y ago

From: jsm<-DerekRoss at 06/11 14:08

> What I meant for the CCs is editing the CCs in a separate text field (no annoying and slow checkboxes) as plain text and then using that separate text to change the tags instead of doing the editing in the content field.

Or... Perhaps clients who don't want to show CCs can remove them...

unclebobmartin 2y ago

This is what a reply looks like without the headers and CCs. ^A ~~and we're off to the races.~~

PABLOF7z 2y ago

🤙🤙 you too 😊

PABLOF7z 2y ago

> I'm not sure what you mean by (not 1 character). Certainly a client can include the subject tag in a search. More-speech does that now.

You can’t do #search filter as relays don’t index non-1-char tags

> #e queries are good when you want to search for notes that refer to other notes. However, I also want to search for notes based on the contents of subject (and the note itself). So I want to put any note with "CNN" in the subject into my "CNN" tab. I can't do that with an #e tag.

My point is you don’t need the subject tag everywhere, just on the OP; each reply you can get by #e:[OP’S ID]

Iirc the subject NIP doesn’t mention anything about replies having to copy the subject tag everywhere

unclebobmartin 2y ago

See below.

From: pablof7z<-DerekRoss at 06/11/23 10:11:33 on wss://atlas.nostr.land

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

CC: #[6]

CC: #[7]

>---------------

> > I'm not sure what you mean by (not 1 character). Certainly a client can include the subject tag in a search. More-speech does that now.

> You can’t do #search filter as relays don’t index non-1-char tags

That's true. However, I _can_ search every message that comes in from the relays I read. I should point out that more-speech reads, and builds a database of, every message that comes in from subscribed relays. (actually, you can set each relay to read all, trusted, or web-of-trust)

This is a significant factor that the twitter mindset has not really considered. Clients that don't adhere to the twitter mindset may tend to treat the relays as message sources more than as search engines.

> > #e queries are good when you want to search for notes that refer to other notes. However, I also want to search for notes based on the contents of subject (and the note itself). So I want to put any note with "CNN" in the subject into my "CNN" tab. I can't do that with an #e tag.

> My point is you don’t need the subject tag everywhere, just on the OP; each reply you can get by #e:[OP’S ID]

That's true _if_ the sending client obeys the threading nips. I note that, at the moment, quite a few do not. And, in any case, I don't want to restrict my search to a single thread. I want all message with CNN in the subject in my CNN tab.

> Iirc the subject NIP doesn’t mention anything about replies having to copy the subject tag everywhere

I don't recall. I'm not interested in the legalities. The point I'm trying to make is that topics and threads are distinct things. We can have several disconnected threads within a topic, or several topics within a single thread.