Ability to quote text across Fibery like in Discourse

I keep coming back, at least one time daily, while working in Fibery, to the need to quote text, most often in comments, to use in another part of Fibery. This is most frequently having to do with communicating with my team in Fibery, or creating new content that stems from existing stuff. We have been talking in here in many cases about how nice it would be to simple have the ability to quote like in Discourse, here’s an example of @Oshyan talking about it:

Since we don’t expressly have a request for this right now, and since I’d love to see this feature simply, independent of a lot of the other good stuff discussed in the forum around merging of chats/comments/references, rethinking of blocks, and other “from the ground up” solutions that are going to take a while, and as far as I can tell, are all still in some state of conception, and thus far off. Simply, I’d love the ability to be able to highlight some text in Fibery, and quote it elsewhere just like you can in Discourse.

Thanks for the consideration

I agree this would be an amazing feature to have. My understanding is something like this may be enabled (to some degree) by the “Transclusion” block, but I’m not sure exactly how it’ll work, and in particular whether it will work with Comments. Would love to know more of what the team has in mind with that.

1 Like

Thanks! Yes one reason I just thought it was time to simply create the request itself, and not keep talking about it as part of some other larger releases, was that I’d love to see just this! Some apps let you link to comments, which also would be useful, and I’m sure in Fibery’s case the links would have more context than in other stuff where you just link to the comment but have to click to get the context, etc.

Would really like to find out if the team is considering this, and when ANY improvements at all to comments might be coming. That is the largest area of frustration for my team, day in day out since we do most of our communication in Fibery.

And by the way, I suppose you too are out of votes? I can’t vote for this or any number of other good requests since I’m out!!

1 Like

Hah, yep, I’m out. I went through recently and cleared a few things out so I could vote for some of my own new requests. But it’s a constant reallocation given the limits. :man_shrugging:

1 Like

And I do hope we get some more votes soon since this community lives on and valid requests come in all the time, but it would appear users who take time in here to think through where to cast votes and value of them, such as yourself or me, can no longer contribute! Don’t really understand that…

You may have just gained a (freed-up) vote when the topic here was closed: Filtering "Collections" Sub-entity views - Request, and is it done?

Otherwise, I think the limits to the number of votes is intended to encourage people to think about what they really want, rather than sprinkling votes here and there, which should, in principle allow votes to reflect importance.

Thanks @Chr1sG for the response. I did pick up the extra vote and just added it here!

I will respectfully disagree with you on the logic of the limit though. There is such a fragmented array of requests in here that it’s hard to figure out where to put your vote. I would love for the Fibery team to share their backlog even more transparently so we could see how they classify these features, such as this very one we are chatting in about quoting like in Discourse. It was mentioned in other areas as part of the general “Blocks” overhaul, which I would be very glad to find out whether that’s considered a “Master” Feature, broken down into sets of sub features which themselves may break down further, and what is actually shippable by the team in what timeframe? @Oshyan discussed in Lack of Work Management features in Fibery (Reminders, Dependencies, Notifications, My Work, etc.) an array of very small improvements that would really help me out, and I wonder how the Fibery team internally is tracking that stuff. So without the benefit of the community being managed in a way where master features/sub features are organized, my 50 votes seem to have gone way too quickly. I’ve spent probably too much time studying where I could leave one off and replace with another, and IMO it just seems like the limit is forcing me, a Fibery customer, to have an additional area of frustration because I really don’t have the time to spend over-analyzing my votes, but then I see requests in here I’d really like to support and I can’t due to the limits.

And along the lines of what I’m saying here, could you reveal how many actual “requests” are in the community at this point, ones that would be considered legit items that the team could move into a backlog and deliver if they thought those items warranted it?

Thanks again!

Here’s a chart I quickly created to show the number of topics vs votes received (for feature requests not marked as solved in Discourse):

and here is the chart with topics receiving 2 or fewer votes excluded (helps to see the tail):

It’s arguable which of these are ‘legit’ but here’s the top part of the list, ranked by votes:

At a quick glance I would say that most of them seem concrete enough to be able to be worked on.

Given the limited development resources, possibly only a handful of them will be able to be worked on at any one time.

The public roadmap is here (as you probably know, but for the benefit of others): . | Fibery

Of the items listed there, I would say that…
‘Collapse fields…’ (Ready for Dev) is one of a number of features that contribute towards ‘Individual layouts for a node, hide fields etc.’ (whilst noting that hide fields has already been released).
‘Create multiple relation views’ (In testing) could also be tied to this theme, but delivers more specifically on ‘Embed Custom Views into Entity View’.
‘Form View (experimental)’ matches to ‘Form View and required fields’.

I haven’t done it, but it might be interesting to compare the Done items with the Discourse topics marked as solved, to get an idea for how well development activity matches the desires of the Discourse community.

There are some points worth noting though, which may or may not be obvious to an average Discourse visitor (I’m not saying you are one @B_Sp :wink: )

  • there is no direct match 1-to-1 between ideas in Discourse and features in the backlog. It would be impossible to do so, since often an idea in the community is often an expression of a problem, rather than an implementation/solution
  • it may be that Fibery believes that the proposed idea is valuable, but is best developed after another feature has been implemented, e.g. Watcher might be best postponed until after Entity-level permissions have been implemented (to avoid doing the work twice over) or there might be other inter-relations (there are several search related ideas, and it might be wise to develop them concurrently
  • the goal with Fibery development is to build the right foundational platform for the future (a.k.a. right first time). Other products may roll out features more rapidly, but then suffer with scalability issues and/or technical debt.
  • Fibery receives a lot of feedback through other channels (specifically in-Fibery chat). In these cases, it is easier to see whether the feedback is coming from a paying customer in the target market, with a long history of use. We sometimes can identify that in the community, but not always.
    Being a business, the opinions of a customer who is a solo user adopting Fibery for personal use have to be less heavily weighted, sorry :person_shrugging:
    FYI, active users in Discourse in last month = 29 (including 8 Fibery staff) vs. unique user contacts via chat in last month = 147

I get that, and it is appreciated that community members do put thought into where to cast their votes, but for every user like yourself, there maybe be many more who are less thoughtful, whose votes may only serve to ‘dilute’ the strength of feeling expressed by others.

1 Like

The vote limits are actually a core feature/limitation of the Voting plugin for Discourse (this forum), and their necessity/utility is somewhat debated. What Chris describes is the understood value, which is largely asserted by the Discourse dev/team and is arguably a matter of opinion rather than hard data. It makes a certain kind of psychological sense, i.e. if you have unlimited votes you may vote for things that really aren’t that important to you, there is no real “cost” to do so (except time), and since all votes “count” the same (have the same value), it may reduce the “quality of signal” that is given to the devs based on these votes. I would personally love to see some real studies done on this kind of stuff, but I’m not aware of any.

Interestingly Michael himself has already expressed elsewhere that:

He then increased the votes for the top Trust Level (4) to 100, and TL3 (us) to 50, I think. I don’t know if what he said above means he truly does not see value in the limit, in which case he might as well set it to 1000, or if he just thought the defaults were too low. I don’t know of anyone with 100 votes in any case, and it may be that the “substance”/sustainable level of activity of this community simply does not produce Trust Level 4 users in any meaningful quantity (going by Chris’ stats below I’d be inclined to say that with more confidence!). The Discourse defaults assume a certain level of activity should be needed to gain that Trust Level, and also builds-in certain fairly powerful abilities to TL4. Neither of those defaults may match well with the actual use/activity of this forum (which frankly is shockingly low as-per Chris’ numbers :cry:). In any case if there is a mismatch and Fibery team wants to address it, one of two things should probably be done.

  1. Adjust the TL4 requirements so that more people reach TL4. This has other consequences, TL4 users are fairly powerful, so I don’t know if this is desirable, but can be considered.
  2. Simply give TL3 users (you and I) 100 votes as well. This is obviously simpler/faster and has less additional consequences.

I also want to call out another important point in that thread I linked to up there :point_up: which connects much more with your concerns about the disconnect between - and resulting lack of transparency in - Discourse vs. internal feature/issue tracking, importance and priority, etc. Here’s the key quote from Michael:

Their recent work on Forms and public sharing quite obviously orients towards exactly this critical use case. So I think they are moving as quickly as they reasonably can toward this goal. Already the Docs are there in Fibery itself. Once external user reg and/or anonymous user activities are supported, I think that almost everything will actually already be in place to support the important parts of the use case. With Forms we can submit new issues and feature requests. With Sharing we can see everything that Fibery team wants to share, including Bugs and Feature Requests. With end-user registration or anonymous interaction we can Vote and maybe even Comment. Alternatively/additionally each Feature could link to a Discourse Topic for further and more in-depth discussion, while the actual Voting and Priority is shown easily in Fibery.

Edit: I also want to add that I think this is a really good focus area for Fibery, not only because Forms have a ton of other uses, but because I think that the current market for “feedback management” tools is full of hot garbage, which is to say all the existing options are some degree of bad. ProductBoard is arguably the worst of the bunch, pretty poor IMO. Canny is OK, a few other newer ones are basically just Canny clones with cheaper pricing or other minor benefits. But they’re all over priced, have limited integrations, and do not do project/task/dev management well with any native features they might have in that area. I’d love to think (and I certainly hope) that Fibery can steal a bit of the high-priced Canny market once they have this set of features in place, because they will almost indisputably be an otherwise far superior solution given the integration with real, and extremely powerful work management. The only potential issue I see is that Fibery probably won’t implement a forum-like system, although if external Comments are allowed it may be good enough.

So I think you can look forward to that (hopefully) addressing many of your concerns to some reasonable degree. And quite honestly then what I’d really love to hear some info/estimates on is when Fibery team thinks it is likely to be possible! Rather than specific, snapshot-in-time of priority of this feature or that, it would be great to know when we can reasonably hope for (though probably not expect :smile:) this greater integration and transparency.

Awww dang, really? I’m shocked! :joy: (it’s OK, I forgive you)

1 Like

This is good conversation @Chr1sG and @Oshyan and I took the time to read it all, but I just don’t have time to respond in-depth. I will say that @Chr1sG I disagree with your point that those are “concrete” feature requests. Things like:

  • Entity-level permissions
  • Dependency tracking/Gantt
  • Form View and required fields
  • Relationship Properties
  • Individual layouts for a node, hide fields, etc. (which is a very old post I recall from the early days of the community and I don’t even understand exactly what that is)…

and many others are by all means Master Features unto themselves which have full teams working on them in more mature companies like Monday, Asana, ClickUp, etc. (I mention these as they are multi-billion dollar companies at this point).

Things like:

  • View images in board view
  • Copy to clipboard button

would seem much simpler, but are they? What does the “copy to clipboard” button copy? If you read that request there are quite a few ways it’s broken down and I don’t really know what that’s requesting specifically. Same with images in board view. This was teased in Reddit, but it’s called “Gallery view” in that post, which might include some extras aside from just showing an attached image to an entity when it’s in the board view.

I am here in the community spending some time and trying to provide justification for a lot of features I think are lacking in Fibery and affect my day-to-day use of the app, one of my goals is to present material that other users could respond to, add their own context, and possibly support as I feel that much of what I need is also needed by the greater market I believe Fibery is targeting, although I can only speculate on that so much. It’s simply frustrating to not be able to support certain requests here in the community, which is the only place they can be supported since as @Oshyan points out we don’t have a way to respond to what the Fibery team breaks down as features they may prioritize. And if something like that is coming, there is no real information about it. I just get much more of a sense of contributing to a community when I know that I can support a post, either via a “heart” (which as we’ve discussed wasn’t necessarily counted as a “vote” here), or by adding a vote such as how Asana or Monday (also using Discourse with votes), or tools using Canny allow. Whatever you think of those votes, it is a much more satisfying experience for me when I can freely add my vote to a request, vs having to constantly redistribute the limited ones I have here in this community.

Thanks again!