Date
1 - 20 of 27
moderated #hashtags
|
Noticed a while back that after I tagged a post with a subject with no hashtag, with one that is
related, any of the following subject replies didnt tie in to the 1st subject , even with the initial post with same subject tagged.
|
|
|
|
Technotronic,
after I tagged a post with a subject with no hashtag, with one that is related, any of the following subject replies didnt tie in to the 1st subject , even with the initial post with same subject tagged.That's because although both posts are inside the same hashtag, they have different subjects (with the first having no subject at all from what I understood). So, as far as I could see, nothing unexpected :) Cheers, Marcio AKA Starboy Sent from a galaxy far, far away.
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
***any of the following subject replies didnt tie in to the
1st subject
***
Are you saying that all
of the subsequent posts (after made the hashtag change) are under one
separate/different (non #hashtag) topic??
Or did each subsequent
post end up under its own topic (i.e., several posts, different topics, having
the same non-#hashtag
subject)?
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
Loosely related I just noticed in our group replies to the original topic (aka subject aka thread) ended up with messages posted under these topics: orig subj orig subj FW: orig subj obviously replies were via email, not web.io. Why?
|
|
|
|
Ken, Loosely related I just noticed in our group replies to the original topic ... ended up with messages posted under these topics: Shal
|
|
|
|
1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
but the tag on all the subsequent replies to the 1st topic didnt get tied in with the tag forced into the first post. The 1st topic is completely seperated from all the subsequent replies now. All the subsequent replies are grouped together but with no tag.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io" <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io> To: <main@beta.groups.io> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags ***any of the following subject replies didnt tie in to the 1st subject ***
|
|
|
|
Initial post had a subject, and was later tagged.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
As an experiment, find the 1st post in a subject thats not been tagged, and tag it. Do all the rest of the replies now get tagged? I dont think they do, and I would like an option to apply the new tag to the rest of the posts in the same subject.
That's because although both posts are inside the same hashtag, they
|
|
|
|
Chris Jones
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 04:49 PM, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
As an experiment, find the 1st post in a subject thats not been tagged,I must confess to being a bit lost in all this, but I think I may have spotted a misunderstanding. A question: are the replies to an initial post correctly threaded below it when the topic is looked at on the web UI? Assuming that they are then the hashtag applies to the Subject as displayed on the web UI, and is not replicated in each of the replies. Chris
|
|
|
|
The replies only, are grouped together. This is what I observed after I applied the tag
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
to the 1st subject. Its possible that after tagging the 1st post, the system now views the rest of the replies as seperate topics. I thought that after tagging the 1st post, the tag would be recursively applied to all the other replies, but this has not been the case. Any other subject that has not been tagged, groups all the subjects fine.
*A question:* are the replies to an initial post correctly threaded below it when the topic is looked at on the web UI?
|
|
|
|
I noticed something weird about this just the other day after adding a hashtag to an already-existing topic. I haven't had time to thoroughly check it out yet but just adding my voice to "something funny seems to be going on."
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:24 AM Technotronic Dimensions <steve@...> wrote: The replies only, are grouped together. This is what I observed after I --
J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
Drew
You added the hashtag to a message post in the archive. If someone replied to that message in the archive the reply would have been hashtagged also; but I think if they replied to the original un-hashtagged post that they received via email it would not carry the hashtag.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
At least, that is my impression. I could be wrong about it. 73, Drew AF2Z
On 08/29/19 10:28, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied,
|
|
|
|
Technotronic,
Ok, I think I figured out what's going
on. 1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied, but the tag on all the subsequent replies to the 1st topic didnt get tied in with the tag forced into the first post.Here's what the Topics and the Threading Algorithm, on the Group Managersr Forum Wiki reads: Posting by email with the same subject text causes them to thread together.... Here is the threading algorithm: If a message has threading information (i.e.: "References" and "In-Reply-To" entries in the message header), use that. Questions:
It's also possible that the person just replied, by email, to the first message they've got (in other words, the topic without the edited and tagged subject). In this case, I agree that the reply should be tagged, assuming the aforementioned conditions. Not sure if it will, but hope this helps. Cheers, Marcio AKA Starboy Sent from a galaxy far, far away.
|
|
|
|
Nope thats basicly what happened. I thought
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
the rest of the messages would get the tag if the 1st message was later assigned a tag. The replies , as well as the 1st post were all done via email. Another observation thats related - is the tag gets added to the subject line multiple times, when there is a reply via email to a message that has the tag in the subject field already.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Drew" <pubx1@af2z.net> To: <main@beta.groups.io> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags You added the hashtag to a message post in the archive. If someone replied to that message in the archive the reply would have been hashtagged also; but I think if they replied to the original un-hashtagged post that they received via email it would not carry the hashtag.
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
Confused!
Are we saying that adding a #HT in effect editing the topic (- or is that the “thread”? or the “subject”? or the “topic”? — I guess it doesn’t matter if consistently being inconsistent is being consistent <wink>) in effect creates a DIFFERENT thread? And a msg reply to the old t/s/t doesn’t get hooked up with the revised t/s/t? If so that seems pretty un handy. It seems that replies within a reasonable period of time should ignore appended #HTs and get m threaded with the revised t/s/t. Or maybe I’m misinterpreting the business rules applied to the email subject lines?
|
|
|
|
Drew
Yes, unfortunately this makes hashtags a lot less useful than they otherwise would be.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
For example, there is no point for a moderator to edit a message topic by adding a hashtag to a previously posted message if most of the subscribers participate in the group via email: they will all have received the original un-tagged post and their email followups to the original will be distributed as untagged. Our group uses hashtags so that subscribers can filter message posts- both in the archive to selectively browse hashtagged topics that they are interested in, but also by email subscribers to mute tags that they don't want to receive. The current hashtag behavior makes the second task a lot less useful than it otherwise would be. I might as well add a formerly mentioned feature request for hashtags: namely, the ability for online subscribers to mute specific hastagged topics while browsing the archive and filter them from view. Drew
On 08/30/19 08:23, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
Nope thats basicly what happened. I thought
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
<<<On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:52 AM, Shal Farley wrote: Ok, but that doesn't explain why orig subj orig subj ended up in different threads/subjects/topics (take your pick <wink> ) They are identical.
Might the algorithm be updated to also ignore other commonly used? like RE:; [SPAM] etc (mind has temporarily gone blank)-- that an email client or other might tack on to the subject line?
|
|
|
|
Ken, Shal Farley wrote: If that page needs correction or improvement please do so (that's what wikis are for). Or let's discuss it in GMF. Shal
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 04:59 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
shal I haven’t a clue about updating the page, or it’s incorrect at all. You referred me to that page in reply to my question why two subject lines, identical, would end up in different threads. Mid you know why I’m all ears. If you don’t i surely don’t either so can’t revise the wiki page. The question pertains to the topic here - revising subject lines and how the result ends up getting threaded. That said I’m happy to cross post on gmf but I would have nothing of substance to add at this point.
|
|
|
|
Chris Jones
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 07:56 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
The question pertains to the topic here - revising subject lines and how the result ends up getting threaded. That said I’m happy to cross post on gmf but I would have nothing of substance to add at this point.From my point of view this thread has generated more heat than light. I have started a series of tests on Shal's test group and have found one "anomaly" (the quotation marks are important here) but until more has been done I will not report any detail back. I reserve the right to report on GMF rather than here because I suspect that is the better place for it. I'll think a bit more about that... Chris
|
|
|
|
Ken,
The question pertains to the topic here - revising subject lines andI suggested the change in venue to stay in keeping with this group's mission, n.b. the beta group's home page description. Once the facts of "what is" are established it would make sense to return here with suggested changes, if any. I haven’t a clue about updating the page, or it’s incorrect at all.Whether the page is factually correct or not, I've inferred from your question that at the least it lacks sufficient clarity. Otherwise you should be able determine whether your example fits the description or not. Hopefully Chris' investigation will ultimately lead to better clarity. Shal
|
|
|
