Topics

moderated Identically named topics


 

Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?


--
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 Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.

I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.

Thanks,
Mark 


 

Mark, I also tested it via email with the same result. Will retest.


On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.

I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.

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


Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 09:51 AM UTC:

Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed,

Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced? It seems to me that enforcement requires looking at all messages with the same subject line and flagging the ones that are off topic. That doesn't seem like something that's even remotely practical to do via programming.


or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If threading is done by Subject:, that's about the only option.

Some email clients can thread based on "Message-Id:" and "References:" headers, but I don't know of any web based email lists (like Groups.io, Yahoo Groups, etc) that do that.

Jim H


 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:43 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced?
They would be threaded into the existing topic.
 
--
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


Barbara Byers
 

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.
 
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.
 
Thanks,
Mark 


Charlie McB
 

Perhaps if people see the effect of using ambiguous topics then they'll be more specific next time.  On my neighborhood group a topic of "Lost dog" may or may not be a brand new topic.

I do support Mark's change to make the web and email interfaces behave the same.  Regardless of whether it's a new topic or threaded to an old topic, it's less confusing when the two routes give the same results.

                -- Charlie

On 12/18/18 3:41 PM, Barbara Byers wrote:

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.
 
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.
 
Thanks,
Mark 



 

Good point and is probably the reason Mark changed it in the first olace. Maybe he should now change it back? (I myself have no opinion and only started this thread in response to comments by Ken and Gerald in another thread.)


On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Barbara Byers <babmay11@...> wrote:

I think it's fine the way it was.

I know it's happened a few different times that folks in my group may have used the same topic name as a previous post unintentionally, where you would NOT want it threaded on to the previous posts.  Something like "Action Alert" or "Meeting tomorrow".  Yes it's sloppy naming because it isn't very specific, but I would agree with you, if someone posted it as a NEW Topic post, then I would also assume they did it intentionally.  I guess I always assumed I would use a reply function if I wanted the post to be in the same thread.  But that's me.

Barb

 


On 2018-12-18 12:23 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:51 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Currently, members can start an infinite number of topics with the same name. Should this be allowed, or should messages bearing the same name as an already existing topic be threaded into that topic?

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.
 
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.
 
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


 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:26 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I also tested it via email with the same result. Will retest.
Mark, the email ones do thread. My mistake.
 
--
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


Bruce Bowman
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.
 
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.
Looks like we may have GMF wiki entry to update: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Avoiding-threading-topics---threading-algorithm 

I preferred things the previous way (ref: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/12491). If someone who is reading online wants to add to an existing thread, then they should reply to that thread. They should not be using the New Topic button.

Bruce


Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 05:44 PM UTC:
 
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:43 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced?

They would be threaded into the existing topic.


Seriously? Why would a message that isn't allowed be threaded into the existing topic? What's the point to considering disallowing off topic messages from being threaded into the existing topic if off topic messages will be threaded into the existing topic?

And far more importantly, as I asked above, how would such messages be detected? It would take some really sophisticated AI programming.

What am I missing?

Jim H


 

Jim, game of telephone. They would be allowed, but not allowed to start new threads. And Mark has done the programming necessary to detect this situation. Or I’m misunderstanding your question. It does not seem to be rocket science...???


On Dec 18, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@...> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 05:44 PM UTC:
 
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:43 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced?

They would be threaded into the existing topic.


Seriously? Why would a message that isn't allowed be threaded into the existing topic? What's the point to considering disallowing off topic messages from being threaded into the existing topic if off topic messages will be threaded into the existing topic?

And far more importantly, as I asked above, how would such messages be detected? It would take some really sophisticated AI programming.

What am I missing?

Jim H

--
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


 

Barbara,

I think it's fine the way it was.
I concur. The original thought process Mark mentioned still seems sound to me.

The only reason the same doesn't uniformly apply to emailed posts is because email interfaces vary: not all of them mark replies as such using the standard header fields In-Reply-To and/or References.

So when an email posting arrives without such marking, Groups.io has to rely on other signals - currently a combination of Subject match and age of the most recent match.

Shal


Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 12/19/2018 02:21 AM UTC:

Jim, game of telephone. They would be allowed, but not allowed to start new threads. And Mark has done the programming necessary to detect this situation. Or I'm misunderstanding your question. It does not seem to be rocket science...???

Yep, telephone... That sounds like the most practical approach.

Jim H