Message Threads
Completed
Hi Discord Team and dear reader!
This would be a feature request for Message Threads, like we can see on Slack.
As a matter of fact, when sending messages in a crowded channel (+15ppl) conversations can easily get lost in the mix. Message threads solve this issue by creating a "sub-channel" on the message that initiated the thread, allowing participants to continue their conversation without spamming the main channel and allowing other users to do the same.
Thanks a lot,
loving Discord!
-
yes plz
1 -
Just hit confusion over lack of threads and having two topics going at the same time yet again...
4 -
Just don't implement like slack, but better than slack
2 -
Please do this now.
0 -
One vote up. I understand this application started out as a chat channel for gamers, in which threading discussions seems overkill. But I'm one of the many who'd like to introduce Discord over Slack for their company, because as far as I can judge they're on par for all we need with most features done better.
But threading is a must-have and therefore a deal breaker. We use Slack intensively and with 40 employees, multiple channels and daily concurrent discussions per channel, we had to commit to thread use. Without them, we ended up in useless mess, and this wasn't because we skimp on the number of channels.
Also, you'd steam-roll Slack as a business app, although admittedly it could use a business mode to hide all the gaming-related options.
2 -
Exactly.
It seems Discord has been slowly shipping more features in line with work focus. Like video chat in voice channels (ala Zoom).
I imagine internally Discord uses Discord to facilitate and organize their work, highly unlikely they they use Slack or Email. They must be dogfooding their own product. I'd also bet they have their own internal version of threading due to the sheer appeal of it for organizing productive discussions.
Hopefully they can deliver this as a feature to customers. It's by far my #1 desire in Discord.
2 -
It's a my + for this feature.
I'm using discord for the last 3-4y (gaming purposes). And now (in case of covid) really want to use it instead of zoom or slack for colleagues communication.1 -
How many more replies do we need here until we get what we want and need?
3 -
Discord has acknowledged they are aware of this interest, but will not comment on whether or not it will actually happen.
1 -
This is a fantastic feature to implement as there could be multiple conversations in a high server chat and things can get lost and being potentially get pinged out of nowhere/later on to continue said conversation when the chat is more relaxed to have said conversation.
Alas, Discord has not said anything on this matter so it maybe on the mid to low place on the 'to do' list while they do other stuff and will get to this sometime this or next year.
2 -
I have a Slack "server" with 1,000+ gamers and I'm trying to bring them to Discord but there's huge resistance and it all comes down to lack of threads. 🤦♂️
It's very active, so we can barely search the past two weeks of history (since the free version only retains the most recent 10,000 posts) but people really, really, really love threads. For active channels with multiple discussions happening concurrently, it really does make things much more manageable.
4 -
We need it
3 -
THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS THREADS ....................................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 -
wish I had seen this sooner, would have added my two bits.
Yes, threads are most definately needed.2 -
Share this suggestion post with friends, colleagues, or strangers. We need more votes!
I am not sure if any vote threshold or activity / comment threshold will produce an official response, but it's the best we course of action we have for making our desire heard!
2 -
We want discord Revolution! :)
0 -
If any devs are looking at this, please look into Flowdock's threading system (as opposed to Slack's). Flowdock has superior threads IMO and they would be much less UI work. Basically adds color thread indicators beside messages and your reply will be in the same thread color. You can open the thread in a side panel to see just that thread.
-3 -
I don't understand the calls for Flowdock style that I've seen here. With that solution, you're solving the issue "I'm not fast enough to keep up with multiple conversations at once", but you're not solving the issue "I want to not get notifications because I have decided I am not interested in this specific conversation".
0 -
I agree with Val with regards to Flowdock. Notifications spam is an issue.
0 -
^
It's not about being "fast enough". It's about having to specify context in your message that is a reply to something which happened hours ago, or before a series of other messages. You're just attaching a context to your message.
Not getting notifications for a conversation you're not interested in is separate problem I suppose. The problem I have with Slack threads is that it's cumbersome to browse and would completely ruin the flow of discord (everything would be collapsed). Flowdock, on the other hand, does not interrupt flow and pretty much every message can be marked for a specific thread. In practice, people don't use Slack threads.
The other thing is that if you're just watching a thread, but then the thread is done for a few days and someone adds more messages to it, as a reader, you have to go back into that collapsed thread and check for new messages. In Flowdock, the last message in the thread will appear in chat and it's like the thread is reopened for readers as well.
Definitely pros/cons, but I've found Flowdock to be better. Perhaps the threading system could follow Flowdock's fundamentals and then add in an option to mute specific threads, thereby collapsing them, not spamming your feed and not notifying you of them.
This is how you're supposed to have a conversation btw. Not throwing in sneak disses like "not fast enough to keep up".
-1 -
Implementing Slack-style threading solves both problems, which is why I'd advocate for it over Flowdock-style. There are days when a relatively quiet channel gets going on a topic that would be easy to ignore if it was a thread, and instead I'm constantly seeing a little red dot in my notifs about it.
It's really difficult for me to understand the idea that it's cumbersome to browse Slack with threads but not Discord with zillions of messages all in a single channel...Discord channels become impossible to catch up on because of this and I end up ignoring half of what gets said. In practice, people do use Slack threads, in my experience. And if you've replied to a thread, you'll get a notification when someone adds more messages to it a few days later...you can also click "Follow this thread" if you want to get notifications like that when you're "just watching" so I'm not sure why that's an issue, either...
Threads are frankly the only way I can deal with Slack at a 300+ person company...because we all use threads! We also enforce it, in that some of the senior team members comment a thread emoji on replies that should be in a thread...I don't love the Slack police, but it's been effective.
If we had Flowdock-style but could collapse threads, I'd be more likely to be into it, but it's just not a style that I see being as effective as Slack-style.
Not that not being fast is particularly meant to be a diss, because I have admitted here that I can't keep up well without threads and end up ignoring conversations, but man, I've also been in this thread for almost a year hoping for a solution to this thing (and advocating against the idea of a solution that would not also solve the notification spam issue), so I'm not going to pretend I'm not pretty tired of the discussion at this point and disinclined to care if I come across as a bit of a cranky old man about it.
0 -
I just wanted to jump in and counter something that Mike said: "people don't use Slack threads". This is just categorically not true.
You might not personally like or use Slack threads, that's fine, but in every Slack "server" I am a part of they are probably one of the most used features of Slack.
I also agree with Val's sentiments. There are a lot of people coming in here and saying "Please don't implement Slack's threads, they are terrible" but I have a very strong feeling that this is a vocal minority. If you surveyed everyone who has up-voted this feature I would imagine that a **vast** majority of people would say either "Please implement Slack threads" or "I don't care how you do it just do threads". If anyone from Discord is listening please look past this vocal minority and consider what Val is saying 👍
1 -
I just wanted to jump in and counter something that real_ate said: "people use Slack threads". This is just categorically not true.
You might personally like and use Slack threads, that's fine, but in every Slack "server" I am a part of, people respond to comments without every finding the button to start a thread.
I also agree with Mike's sentiments. There are a lot of people coming in here and saying "Please don't implement Flowdock's threads, they are terrible" but I have a very strong feeling that this is a vocal minority. If you surveyed everyone who has up-voted this feature I would imagine that a **vast** majority of people would say either "Please implement Flowdocks threads" or "I don't care how you do it just do threads". If anyone from Discord is listening please look past this vocal minority and consider what Mike is saying 👍
-3 -
Threads ♥️
2 -
Discord, why we don't have threads already?
0 -
i am following this thread for at least 6 months or more. since there is absolutely NO PROGRESS i stop follow this. Have fun and good luck.
0 -
Just to counter @mike, I am apart of a bunch of slack servers and each and everyone of them uses threads. I think if you surveyed slack users you would find that you are in the minority. And if no one in your group can find the threads button, it only takes one person to start using it for people to see that it exists. Be the change you want to see in the world.
0 -
@mike yaworski Slack threads let you dupe replies to the channel discussion to provide a current link back to the thread if the person feels it's necessary (for example, it's an older thread that people would miss). I'm sure there's a good compromise between the two approaches. Maybe this requires a new approach - like a subpanel in the channel with a ticker feed of active threaded discussions, color-coded and visible in main discussion area like Flowdock, yet also out of the main channel discussion area like Slack.
4 -
When software changes and adds new features, you socialize 'em, and folks start using them. Very much agree with the "be the change you want to see" idea - if you start using threads, they'll catch on, and even moreso if mod types start enforcing that it's expected behavior. Don't @ here, don't @ channel, use threads. Easy peasy!
3 -
It somewhat puzzles me that there has been zero response from the devs on this. I say somewhat because I've worked in a number of companies, and I'm guessing there is one dev that oversees the project that was probably there from day one that has sworn not to do Threads, and that person has a ton of influence over the software. I've seen it time and time again where a ideology from a lead dev keeps software from progressing in ways that users want. It breaks "their" vision and they'll ignore it until the're gone. It's sad, but ultimately that's what happens. They're forced to leave. It takes a while though.
4
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
680 comments