I'm making a prediction: the introduction of #quoteToots will do absolutely nothing to help retention or entice users to join the #Fediverse (or even just #Mastodon in particular), and it will be responsible for a significant lowering of the level of discourse.
Well I can let you know that for me personally, QT functionality really did entice me as I was looking around at different Fediverse options.
So yes, we exist!
I really find the QT option to just be natural and fill a semantic gap that isn't really filled well by other options you mention, especially considering how kludgy they feel.
QT is great for building on content to expanding audiences, and they're just really isn't a better natural way to do that, to really enhance the value of the content on the platform.
Sure, it's also going to be abused, but I'm more interested in building up than keeping down.
@volkris show me ONE case of QT usage that couldn't be done by linking another toot and having a decent preview.
No problem: A simple use case is resharing another toot with a note of explanation without having to have the link or preview there in the body, instead having it integrated into the feed as first class content.
This is preferable both semantically and practically, especially because it is proving to be quite an annoyance to click on that link and be brought out of the interface instead of seamlessly moving to the content.
So that solution strikes me as having most of the downsides you fear but with extra annoyance for users.
The use case I'm describing is sharing content, not sharing previews. It's here is some content that you can follow back to its origin, not here is a link that leads to some content elsewhere.
To me these are strikingly different concepts, both in terms of meaning and in terms of implementation.
You can get into all sorts of things ranging from screen reader adaptiveness through organization of feed display with the semantic clarity, but only if you allow it to exist.
"Just throw in a link!" Is not the same, losing author intent, and making it harder for readers to engage with the content on the platform.
@volkris QTs are literally just improved card previews of links to other posts. Even on Twitter.
They may be implemented that way, but they don't have to be, especially here on instance to instance basis.
So here's another way of thinking about it: I might choose between #QT and linking based on whether I want to bring that content into my expression or keep it at arms length, depending on what it is and my intention in sharing it farther.
Specifically, I might bring the content into my feed with a notification to the originator that the content is being built upon, similar to a boost notification, or I might not care for them to know, so I would use a link that would not trigger the notification.
You could say, Oh well mention the person, but again that sort of unnecessary kludge skips the chance to have semantic information attached, letting the person know exactly why they are being notified.
QTs convey meaning that requires hoops to sort of make up for throwing the meaning away
@volkris This conversation has gotten boring and is going nowhere.
Just keep in mind that other people have different ways of communicating, ways that are better for them, and #QT is a tool for communication that doesn't really have a functional equal through other features of #Mastodon even after jumping through hoops.
It's fine that you don't personally like QT, and thanks to the federated system we can talk about filters to ignore QTs, to give you the experience you want while still empowering others to publish their content more effectively.
@volkris you too seem to have missed the rest of the thread. See here <https://sociale.network/@oblomov/110351144566156971>: better previews for toots is a much-needed feature (although not as much as better federation of threads, it would seem). One-click action to “create a new toot linking to this and add some text” is not. One-click action encourages abuse. Better inline previews improve existing use.