Date   

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

 

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


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

Glenn Glazer
 

On 8/16/2019 18:24, J_Catlady wrote:
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

--
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 ?

 

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


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

Duane
 

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


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

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


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

 

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


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

 

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


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

 

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


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

Glenn Glazer
 

On 8/16/2019 18:11, Shal Farley wrote:
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

--
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 ?

Duane
 

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


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

9341 - 9360 of 31095