moderated Re: Suggested updates to message footer

Samuel Murrayy

On 2019/02/26 11:26 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:

Using "Reply to group" results in the message created still being correctly threaded on the web forum, which implies to me that it would also keep it threaded correctly in an e-mail reader.
No, e-mail programs that support threading don't use the subject line as a "threader", but rather use clues left in the e-mail's headers. If you send a new e-mail that just happens to have the same subject line as a message sent shortly before, e-mail programs that support threading will consider your message to be the start of a new thread.

That said, I don't know what newer "e-mail readers" (which appears to be the new word for "e-mail program") do these days.

But not all e-mail programs support threading, and so that's not really something I would personally take into account when talking about this.

It is precisely because threading (and grouping by conversation, and sorting by date) is/are so unreliable, that I consider quoting to be preferable.

Any user who habitually posts "replies" without any indication of what it is that he is replying to, quickly earns a place in my ignore list.

I generally strip anything from a previous message from my replies unless something must be maintained for context.  I'd give my eye teeth if most users would strip out the utterly unnecessary bottom quoting of virtually the entirety of an ongoing thread.
Yes, but eliminating quoting altogether is not a good solution for the problem of people not trimming their messages of unnecessary text. I, too, want people to trim their replies, but I also want them to include some context.

(If you write "I agree", I want to know what you're agreeing with. Even saying "I agree with John" isn't enough, unless John posts only once.)

If you read via the web interface, the whole topic is right there.
I think the web interface is only really suitable for single-branched topics (i.e. A replies to B, C then replies to B, D then replies to C, etc). Or for discussions where all replies always relate to the first message (and not to each other). Or for discussions where no-one is really responding to anyone in particular, but merely contributing random opinions about some general topic.

The web interface does not show multi-branched threading, so unless the replies can be chained in a single string, the fact that messages with identical subject lines are grouped together and sorted by date doesn't really help anyone follow multiple conversations within that thread.

If you're using an e-mail client, you should be using threaded/conversation view so that you can find earlier messages for topics you're actively participating in.
FWIW, I am aware that some e-mail programs do offer "conversation" view, which groups messages together with identical subject lines and sorts them by send date. I personally use threaded view, which groups mails in a "tree". I know of users who simply sort incoming mails by date.

Endless bottom quoting makes searching the archive for a specific piece of information sheer hell when you're trying to go "straight to the original source."
No-one here said anything about endless bottom posting.

Yes, quoted text does make searching more difficult, if the search utility is too primitive to excluded quoted text from the search.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.