It seems to me that most participants in this discussion are making unjustified 
assumptions about how other people reply to emails. Some people routinely top 
post, leaving sometimes too much (as assumed by some here) but sometimes a 
properly trimmed quote which they wish to be included under their reply. On the 
other hand, on one quite busy mailing list I'm on (not a group) top posting is 
frowned on but very often a complete topic of many messages is left at the top 
of the reply. My feeling is that control of this sort of thing should be left 
to group admins, with no attempt by the system to enforce any particular 
approach.

Jim Fisher

Hear, hear!

Best,

Glenn

On 16 Aug 2019 at 18:29, J_Catlady wrote:

I agree! Hiding the quote makes total sense for quotes below a reply, because
those quotes are accidental, not meant to be read, and a PITA as they
accumulate. Intentional quotes at the top of the reply are an entirely different
situation and I see no reason to hide them (and force readers to click on a link
to see them) unless they consist of the entire prior message, complete with sig.
Perhaps there is simply no solution to that problem. Faced with the choice, I'd
restore things to how they were.

It seems to me that most participants in this discussion are making unjustified
assumptions about how other people reply to emails. Some people routinely top
post, leaving sometimes too much (as assumed by some here) but sometimes a
properly trimmed quote which they wish to be included under their reply. On the
other hand, on one quite busy mailing list I'm on (not a group) top posting is
frowned on but very often a complete topic of many messages is left at the top
of the reply. My feeling is that control of this sort of thing should be left
to group admins, with no attempt by the system to enforce any particular
approach.

Jim Fisher

Mark,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:08 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

it behaves differently if the message you are replying to contains a signature or not. If it does not, and you bottom reply, it does not collapse the quoted message. If the message you are replying to does contain a signature, it does collapse the quoted message, but keeps the 'On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:59 PM Mark Fletcher .... wrote' part.

That's very interesting, because it's nearly exactly what I was requesting - namely, collapse only if sig is included (to avoid the confusion I experienced in reading these kinds of messages).

Anyway, glad you reverted the change. 
 
--
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

Changes to the site this week:

• CHANGE: For premium/enterprise groups, only automatically add an event to the calendar that was emailed to the group if the message is not a reply.
• BUGFIX: When viewing a database row that had checkbox columns, the checkboxes were always checked.
• BUGFIX: Registering a new account via Google or Facebook was broken.
• API: Changed /getgroup endpoint to require a group_name for groups that you are not subscribed to, for security.
• API: Documentation change: The Objects section has been moved to the end of the docs.
• API: The Group object now includes a Perms object if you are subscribed to the group.
• API: Relaxed the requirement for having the manage_group_settings permission when accessing the /getgroup endpoint.
• API: Added /sendchatmsg endpoint.
• INTERNAL: Optimizations for calendars with a lot of repeating events.
• API: Added /getchathistory endpoint.
• API: Added group_name and nice_group_name to the Event object.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Mark

Gerald,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:53 PM, Gerald Boutin wrote:

Unless I forget, I always delete any signature lines.

Ok, good! In that particular one, the signature line was included. And I think what made that particular message particularly confusing is that you were quoting an entire message of mine, which itself quoted me in a prior message. When I read the message on my phone, I had no idea at first what was going on. The message is here (Mark included it at the top of this thread), and it seems the new collapsing scheme is retroactive:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/21883
 
--
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

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:21 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

It would be interesting to find out how Gerald (and others) created the messages that I'm seeing come through email this way.
 

Unless I forget, I always delete any signature lines.

I either select a specific section of text I want to include before clicking on "Reply" or I just "Reply" and click the "copy all" lasso and delete what I don't want.

I always try to include the "who sent" the message I am responding to.

If a wish of mine comes true and the "Preview" will show exactly what is going to be sent, I don't care what options or magic Mark throws at this issue.

--
Gerald

Duane,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:28 PM, Duane wrote:

Still gets collapsed...

Yes, I know. Nothing has changed in that regard since Mark's most recent change. I think you were referring to a suggested change that has not been implemented.
 
--
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

Glenn,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:29 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

Your attempted subversion failed. I do not see my own sig line in the message.

No, it succeeded with flying colors! I did not quote your sig and there was no reason for me to do so. I quoted a line from your message, as I am doing herewith, and it did not collapse (as it will not now) because I added a greeting. 
 
--
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

Glenn,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:19 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

That's like saying that the frame isn't a relevant part of a portrait.  You are critiquing something using a criteria which is not based on its purpose.

I think any prior signature should not be included in a quote one is responding to. Doing so creates the essence of the problem I've been experiencing with these messages. If you want to make reference to the person you're responding to, you can add an addressee, as Shal does (and as I am now doing for the strictly technical purpose of subverting the collapsing), and/or you can leave the attribution created by the system ("xyz wrote..."). Sigs don't belong in quoted text IMHO.

Your attempted subversion failed. I do not see my own sig line in the message.

In general, I believe it is up to the writer, not the reader to determine what their message content is.

Best,

Glenn

Duane,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:25 PM, Duane wrote:

We finally got people to include only the relevant part of the previous message and now it's being hidden

I agree! Hiding the quote makes total sense for quotes below a reply, because those quotes are accidental, not meant to be read, and a PITA as they accumulate. Intentional quotes at the top of the reply are an entirely different situation and I see no reason to hide them (and force readers to click on a link to see them) unless they consist of the entire prior message, complete with sig. Perhaps there is simply no solution to that problem. Faced with the choice, I'd restore things to how they were.
 
--
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

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 08:24 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

you can leave the attribution created by the system ("xyz wrote...")

Still gets collapsed...

Duane

I've just been going through some messages on one of my groups and this change has made a big mess of things.  We finally got people to include only the relevant part of the previous message and now it's being hidden.  Makes it difficult to see what we should be seeing.

Duane

Glenn,

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:19 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

That's like saying that the frame isn't a relevant part of a portrait.  You are critiquing something using a criteria which is not based on its purpose.

I think any prior signature should not be included in a quote one is responding to. Doing so creates the essence of the problem I've been experiencing with these messages. If you want to make reference to the person you're responding to, you can add an addressee, as Shal does (and as I am now doing for the strictly technical purpose of subverting the collapsing), and/or you can leave the attribution created by the system ("xyz wrote..."). Sigs don't belong in quoted text IMHO.
 
--
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

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:12 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

the other person's sig is (almost?) never a relevant part.

Oh, forgot to mention this: the sig is worse than not relevant: i's a barrier to clear communication. When you see the sig at the bottom, your brain parses it as "end of message." That's the main problem.

It would be interesting to find out how Gerald (and others) created the messages that I'm seeing come through email this way.
 
--
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

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:12 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

perhaps because it is no longer at the "top" -- my and your greetings are

Exactly. ^^^ In fact, I started using what you call a "greeting" (and I've called an addressee) to subvert the collapsing. Didn't bother doing it this time. 
 
--
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

I And the other person's sig is (almost?) never a relevant part.

Shal

That's like saying that the frame isn't a relevant part of a portrait.  You are critiquing something using a criteria which is not based on its purpose.

Best,

Glenn

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:59 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

because of the unreadability situation this causes.

It hasn't caused any readability problems for me.

Duane

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