Date   

moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

J,


No, I've figured out that the distinction is that you add an addressee at the top, which violates the "one and only one" condition on the collapsing.

[me: looks at the topic on web again] Ah, or perhaps because it is no longer at the "top" -- my and your greetings are.

In a couple of groups in which I'm a mod, I've actually chided people for including the whole prior message, complete with signature, in their responses, because of the unreadability situation this causes.

I generally agree, especially the bit about quoting the whole prior message and not trimming it to the relevant part. And the other person's sig is (almost?) never a relevant part.
Shal


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Shal,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:54 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I think the key distinction is that I routinely trim away the "On [date] [someone] wrote:" line
No, I've figured out that the distinction is that you add an addressee at the top, which violates the "one and only one" condition on the collapsing.

I think you're mistaken, or else your email interface is doing something odd.
All I can tell you is that message(s) look like a prior email with no response. I can go back and try to find Gerald's email (which was just the latest example of this phenomenon). In a couple of groups in which I'm a mod, I've actually chided people for including the whole prior message, complete with signature, in their responses, because of the unreadability situation this causes.  
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

J,


(And I think the key to why the collapsing was not happening here before (e.g., in Shal's reply to me) and not in my tests is the condition "one and only one." If there are multiple quotes, then you don't collapse.)

I think the key distinction is that I routinely trim away the "On [date] [someone] wrote:" line that introduces a conventional full message quote. Some people trim the body of the quote to the relevant part (which is laudable) but leave that generated line.

There's another element to the confusing situation I was originally wanting a solution to in this thread, and that's the fact that the unreadability also comes about in part due to there being no attribution ("xyz wrote").

I think you're mistaken, or else your email interface is doing something odd.
Shal


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Shal,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:44 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I vote for keeping it.
Interesting that the collapsing is not a problem in your replies, because you tend to address your replies to an individual, as I've done here. That can be a way around the newly-created nuisance. :-)
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Here's another reason I think it should be reverted: the collapsing of a prior message *below* a reply is because the quotation there is unintentional, an artifact (almost 100% of the time) of replying by email and not bothering, or not knowing how, to trim the prior email. Nobody wants all those messages to accumulate below a reply in the web version of the message, even if they accumulate in email (because there's no way around it).

By contrast, quoted text *above* a reply is intentional. The writer of the reply *wants* and intends for it to be seen and read. Collapsing it forces the reader to click on it rather than having an immediate view of it, which is the creation of a nuisance, rather than the prevention of one as in quotes below.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Mark,


Should this recent change be reverted? My feeling is to keep it, but I'm easily influenced on this.

I vote for keeping it.

I don't recall running into top-quoted messages that often, but I do like the way this looks and works on the example messages from Gerald and yourself and the several others in this topic (ok, maybe I just didn't notice them before).

Shal


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:42 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
I suspect this is true for others who interact with the group primarily by email.
That ^^^ depends on what you mean by "interact." I use both email and the web. The problem comes about when reading the email of a reply created on the web.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

Glenn Glazer
 

On 8/16/2019 17:32, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Hi All,

Working with J, I think the issue is as follows: The algorithm just looks for a quoted block at the beginning of the message, and if it finds one (and only one in the entire message), it collapses it. It doesn't look to see whether that quoted block was the *entire* message being replied to or not. Note, this is also how the other collapse algorithm works, that is, it does not consider whether the quoted block is the entire message or not.

Should this recent change be reverted? My feeling is to keep it, but I'm easily influenced on this.

Thanks,
Mark

My feeling is that the entire thing is a mountain of molehills and either way is fine for me. I suspect this is true for others who interact with the group primarily by email.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
collapse only when either there's no attribution or no sig
Oops, I meant only when either there's no attribution, or there IS a sig included in the quote
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:33 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
if it finds one (and only one in the entire message), it collapses it.
And here's an example of that ^^^. Notice I resorted to the use of symbols to call attention to what I was answering, rather than feeling free to just answer. I would revert this back to how it was, if only to avoid confusion among users as to why it's collapsed when multiple quotes are not collapsed. (And I think the key to why the collapsing was not happening here before (e.g., in Shal's reply to me) and not in my tests is the condition "one and only one." If there are multiple quotes, then you don't collapse.)

There's another element to the confusing situation I was originally wanting a solution to in this thread, and that's the fact that the unreadability also comes about in part due to there being no attribution ("xyz wrote"). All you saw was the entire prior message, with no indication that it's the prior message, until you venture to read way down below it, past the signature, to find the reply. (The other element is the inclusion of the sig in the quote.) If you could somehow, instead, collapse only when either there's no attribution or no sig (the latter probably too difficult), that would work.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

J,


I'm talking about doing what you just did in your reply, and what I am doing here by quoting you. But it seems to be working here. It went afoul in my test.

Interesting. If the collapse into Show quoted text sometimes interferes with being able to quote the rest of the message text that would be a problem. I haven't reproduced any odd behavior.


The problem I was trying to describe originally consisted of emails *received* that looked either blank at first glance because they included the entire prior message, complete with signature.

Right. I didn't assume you were talking about reading the message in a mobile email interface, as opposed to a mobile browser opened to a Groups.io page. I would hope for the new top-quote collapse to work in a mobile browser interface, but not in any email interface (desktop or mobile). I'm not even sure it could, given the diversity of email interfaces people are using. I notice that my mobile (Android) Gmail interface tends to heavily "sanitize" the message before display.

One more reason for you to eagerly anticipate the mobile app for Groups.io.

Shal


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Hi All,

Working with J, I think the issue is as follows: The algorithm just looks for a quoted block at the beginning of the message, and if it finds one (and only one in the entire message), it collapses it. It doesn't look to see whether that quoted block was the *entire* message being replied to or not. Note, this is also how the other collapse algorithm works, that is, it does not consider whether the quoted block is the entire message or not.

Should this recent change be reverted? My feeling is to keep it, but I'm easily influenced on this.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Shal and Mark,

In my example (which I've sent to Mark at support), I replied to a message via the web, in which I copied a line of text to respond to in my reply (just like we have been doing here, where the text shows up indented immediately above the reply). But instead of showing up as text, the blue box appears saying "Show quoted text."

In the email that comes through (as opposed to the web), nothing is collapsed at all. The original problem I brought up here was with reading emails on a small device. When nothing is collapsed, and when the quoted text in the reply consists of the entire original message complete with signature, the reply at first looks blank and is extremely difficult to parse. 

I don't know why quoting and indenting are working here in beta in this thread, but not in my tests. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:29 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
 
Why would you? you'd be quoting text that was already quoted, not the text of the message you're replying to (if I understand this).
Shal,
I'm talking about doing what you just did in your reply, and what I am doing here by quoting you. But it seems to be working here. It went afoul in my test.

None of this collapsing of quotes ever applied to Individual emails, nor should it IMO.
Ok. I need to retest and rethink. The problem I was trying to describe originally consisted of emails *received* that looked either blank at first glance because they included the entire prior message, complete with signature. Others have noticed this (recent) phenomenon, which seemed to occur only after the fix to not putting a sig into ellipses. I'm no longer sure exactly how to describe the problem. But it is still there and I'm about to send Mark an example at support. If I can, I'll post one here as well.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Mark,

I'll forward you one to support that I just sent through my test group.

J

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:29 PM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
J,

I clearly don't quite understand what you're asking for. Can you point to a specific message and tell me exactly how it's not being handled the way you expect? 

Thanks,
Mark


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

J,


It is now impossible to selectively quote small pieces of text (which used to appear indented) and respond to them.

Why would you? you'd be quoting text that was already quoted, not the text of the message you're replying to (if I understand this).

If you must, can you open the ellipsis and select them in the original message, before clicking reply? I have to I haven't sought an example to try this with.

Not only that! I just tested this with a reply via email, and nothing is collapsed in the email.

None of this collapsing of quotes ever applied to Individual emails, nor should it IMO.

Collapsing is for the web interface, eliding in the digest.

Shal


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

J,

I clearly don't quite understand what you're asking for. Can you point to a specific message and tell me exactly how it's not being handled the way you expect? 

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Not only that! I just tested this with a reply via email, and nothing is collapsed in the email. The same problem I originally brought up here exists, namely: if someone replies via email, and puts their reply entirely below the prior message, the entire prior message shows up first, complete with signature. So the original problem is not fixed when the person replies via email (nothing is collapsed), and when they reply via the web, too much is collapsed. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Uh-oh. Mark, this is exactly what I hoped you wouldn't do! It is now impossible to selectively quote small pieces of text (which used to appear indented) and respond to them. I think this fix went much too far in the opposite direction. It's now useless to quote and respond. 

My complaint referred only to replies which either (a) included the prior message's signature in the quote and/or (b) quoted the entire prior message. Is it possible to selectively apply the fix only to one or both of those situations?
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: the fix to including sigs in text went too far ?

 

Hi All,

We now collapse quoted parts in bottom post messages (where the reply comes at the end of the message). 

Cheers,
Mark