Comments Query Loop: Simplify and clarify the block settings #38864
Labels
[Block] Comments
Affects the Comments Block - formerly known as Comments Query Loop
[Type] Enhancement
A suggestion for improvement.
What problem does this address?
This issue was arisen in #38187 (comment).
There are some concerns regarding the current settings of the Comment Query Loop block. Naming is confusing, e.g., “Order by” only affects the order in which the comments are listed in a page, not the pages order.
In addition, for the same setting, there is no exact correlation between the values in Gutenberg and the values in the dashboard, e.g., “Default page” lets you choose between “Oldest” or “Newest”, but it’s not clear what page is going to be shown (are “Oldest” or “Newest” the “first” or the last “page” you can select in the WP Discussion Settings?).
These are the current settings of the Comment Query Loop block (in Gutenberg):
These are the Discussion settings that match the Comment Query Loop settings (in the dashboard):
What is your proposed solution?
Let's continue the conversation here. This is a summary of what was mentioned so far:
We could make settings more specific so it's clearer what they do, e.g. divide “Order by” into “Order pages by” and “Order items on the page by” (mentioned by @gziolo).
Another option would be to merge the “Order by” and the “Default page” options in a single toggle: “Show newest comments first”, in order to make things simpler at this stage (mentioned by @jasmussen).
In regard to adding some helping texts for users, we could add some help-text below the “Inherit from Discussion Settings” toggle, something like:
Use globally defined sort order and comment settings. You can configure these in [link]Discussion Settings[/link]
(mentioned by @jasmussen).Or maybe add some text on the global Discussion settings to clarify that
the ordering and default page options are defaults, and might be overwritten by the theme/template
(mentioned by @jameskoster).cc @SantosGuillamot @c4rl0sbr4v0 @michalczaplinski
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: