moderated selective splitting/merging of topics #suggestion


 

I realize this will be low on the priorities even if doable, but it would be very convenient to be able to split and merge a range  (an "inner" subset) of posts from a thread rather than the whole thing or just the end.

I'm currently trying to untangle a topic that got very twisted up with another one, and am about to give up. Usually I can split off the end of a topic once it goes into a tangent, and rename it. Even when people continue to respond via email (and therefore to the old topic), I can manage to split the pieces off into temporary threads, split THOSE at the point where the topic changes back to the correct one, and place the pieces where they belong into the proper threads. But today the tangling is just too hard to undo.

It would be great to have the ability to split off a range of messages within a thread into a new thread, rather than the entire end of the thread. And similarly, it would be very useful to merge a range of messages within a thread into another thread. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Hi,

I second this suggestion, especially when facing a situation where someone would start an off-topic post in the middle of a thread.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:54 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] selective splitting/merging of topics #wishlist #longshot

 

I realize this will be low on the priorities even if doable, but it would be very convenient to be able to split and merge a range  (an "inner" subset) of posts from a thread rather than the whole thing or just the end.

I'm currently trying to untangle a topic that got very twisted up with another one, and am about to give up. Usually I can split off the end of a topic once it goes into a tangent, and rename it. Even when people continue to respond via email (and therefore to the old topic), I can manage to split the pieces off into temporary threads, split THOSE at the point where the topic changes back to the correct one, and place the pieces where they belong into the proper threads. But today the tangling is just too hard to undo.

It would be great to have the ability to split off a range of messages within a thread into a new thread, rather than the entire end of the thread. And similarly, it would be very useful to merge a range of messages within a thread into another thread. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

They can't start it in the middle of a thread. It would be at the end initially, and that's easy to split (assuming you get to in time). The problem is when responses via email still go to the original thread. 

The more I think about this, the more I realize how much time I spend actually trying to fix these situations. So if at all doable, it would be super convenient. Without it, thread splitting (or renaming) is of very limited usefulness.

J

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:

Hi,

I second this suggestion, especially when facing a situation where someone would start an off-topic post in the middle of a thread.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:54 AM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] selective splitting/merging of topics #wishlist #longshot

 

I realize this will be low on the priorities even if doable, but it would be very convenient to be able to split and merge a range  (an "inner" subset) of posts from a thread rather than the whole thing or just the end.

I'm currently trying to untangle a topic that got very twisted up with another one, and am about to give up. Usually I can split off the end of a topic once it goes into a tangent, and rename it. Even when people continue to respond via email (and therefore to the old topic), I can manage to split the pieces off into temporary threads, split THOSE at the point where the topic changes back to the correct one, and place the pieces where they belong into the proper threads. But today the tangling is just too hard to undo.

It would be great to have the ability to split off a range of messages within a thread into a new thread, rather than the entire end of the thread. And similarly, it would be very useful to merge a range of messages within a thread into another thread. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

            I understand what you're asking for, and agree it would be ideal, but I really wonder whether it would help at all even if it were possible because of the "dual nature" of Groups.io that I know we've talked about here many times.

            In any group where you have the majority of participants interacting via e-mail it's the e-mail subject itself that determines whether a given submission will be attached to an existing topic/thread, be spun off as a separate thread, and the like.    Even if you were able to "hack out a tangent from the heart of an ongoing topic" and establish a separate topic, what are the odds that any of the many e-mail participants are going to know about that in in any timely manner.  I can see, on groups with large memberships and a large percentage of e-mail participants, all attempts to do what it sounds like you're trying to do coming to naught when someone replies to the original topic, from which you've now established a parallel topic with a new title that befits it, and you are back to having that parallel topic as a tangent either at the end of or, if enough "original topic topic" responses come in after it, back in the heart of the original thread.

             I am driven crazy, almost literally, by the endless amount of unnecessary (and sometimes unintentional, but often not) topic/thread splitting that goes on in many Groups.io groups which is sort of the "flip side" of your initial issue - but a related one.   You'll have an original topic, say, "Amazon Echo," asking for people's opinions and experiences with said product.  One person responding decides to change the subject to, "My impressions of the Amazon Echo," and the splitting is afoot.  I can't make certain e-mail participants understand what havoc this wreaks for those trying to read on the web interface and what this does to archive coherence as well.  I've seen what are actually single conversation topics broken into sometimes as many as three or four separate topics.  I have wracked my brain for a way to beg people to not do this and, if they have a stand-alone topic that is spurred by an existing one that's not a brief diversion, to actually create a reply with a Subject that will create a topic that others can gravitate to in order to discuss it.   I have decided that this is likely an impossible dream on my part.
--
Brian

I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.   

          ~  James G. Bennet


 

Right. All true. But given that there IS the availability of thread splitting/renaming, which we're stuck with, I think a 'cut and splice' feature would at least be an improvement.
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 20, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

J,

            I understand what you're asking for, and agree it would be ideal, but I really wonder whether it would help at all even if it were possible because of the "dual nature" of Groups.io that I know we've talked about here many times.

            In any group where you have the majority of participants interacting via e-mail it's the e-mail subject itself that determines whether a given submission will be attached to an existing topic/thread, be spun off as a separate thread, and the like.    Even if you were able to "hack out a tangent from the heart of an ongoing topic" and establish a separate topic, what are the odds that any of the many e-mail participants are going to know about that in in any timely manner.  I can see, on groups with large memberships and a large percentage of e-mail participants, all attempts to do what it sounds like you're trying to do coming to naught when someone replies to the original topic, from which you've now established a parallel topic with a new title that befits it, and you are back to having that parallel topic as a tangent either at the end of or, if enough "original topic topic" responses come in after it, back in the heart of the original thread.

             I am driven crazy, almost literally, by the endless amount of unnecessary (and sometimes unintentional, but often not) topic/thread splitting that goes on in many Groups.io groups which is sort of the "flip side" of your initial issue - but a related one.   You'll have an original topic, say, "Amazon Echo," asking for people's opinions and experiences with said product.  One person responding decides to change the subject to, "My impressions of the Amazon Echo," and the splitting is afoot.  I can't make certain e-mail participants understand what havoc this wreaks for those trying to read on the web interface and what this does to archive coherence as well.  I've seen what are actually single conversation topics broken into sometimes as many as three or four separate topics.  I have wracked my brain for a way to beg people to not do this and, if they have a stand-alone topic that is spurred by an existing one that's not a brief diversion, to actually create a reply with a Subject that will create a topic that others can gravitate to in order to discuss it.   I have decided that this is likely an impossible dream on my part.
--
Brian

I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.   

          ~  James G. Bennet


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

        No argument there, as one can find oneself in the situation where a series of messages "sandwiched between the original topic and more of the original topic" would be ideal for excision and being set up as a separate topic of their own.

        I was just musing on the futility of it all in the grand scheme of things, not the lack of utility of your request.
--
Brian

I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.   

          ~  James G. Bennet