Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 05:37 pm, J_catlady wrote:
A delay is extremely distasteful to me as well.
Just as an aside, there's one built-in to e-mail posting whether you want it or not. In doing my testing regarding the duplicate and triplicate posts for "that other thread" I found that there is a very distinct delay between when you send your message, when it appears on the web interface, and when you get that message back in your inbox as part of the thread.
Even though we disagree, I just don't see what the big deal is about a brief hold that allows callback of a post when done on the web forum. It goes on its own, with no further intervention, if you don't call it back. Like I said, the hold could be very brief as far as I'm concerned, under a minute before it goes "into the wild."
That's never going to happen, and I've accepted it. I've also accepted that if one really feels the need to edit messages that the result is duplicate messages (in the most part) and that one should, particularly if editing fairly long after the original post went live, definitely note the reason. I stand by my position that if I make an edit thirty seconds after the initial post one is not necessary. Any e-mail user should recognize the latter of two "rapid succession" messages to be the "final version."
I also disagree that the archives on many groups, not all, but many, are not a mess secondary to issues that could be solved by judicious editing and moderation where certain ultra-cluttering quotation of material not referred to in any way in a follow-up message is strictly forbidden. Of course, we're now back to my bit saying this should be a cultural expectation, and it should, but someone has to be the cultural arbiter to get the culture established.
A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo. ~ Bill Gray