moderated 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


 

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


 

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


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

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


 

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


 

Hi All,

I just did some tests using Gmail. Interestingly, 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. In general, Gmail is pretty aggressive about collapsing signatures.

I've reverted the change. If it is causing confusion, like with Duane's group, I don't think it's worth it.

Mark


 

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


 

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


Glenn Glazer
 

On 8/17/2019 11:40, Jim Fisher wrote:
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

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


 

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 11:40 AM, Jim Fisher wrote:
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.
In my opinion, Mark's decision to collapse bottom posts but not top posts fits with what the majority of people expect. Gmail might be taken as a standard here: it does not collapse top posts, which is consistent with groups.io; and it collapses bottom posts if the prior post being quoted contains the signature, which is a clue that the post was not trimmed (and which makes it difficult to read) - which is what I was originally requesting but seems to be too hard to implement (or not worth it). I think this is the right decision, too.

The system has to do one thing or the other. It has to collapse top-posts, or not. It has to collapse bottom posts, or not. If it does nothing, it's doing something. The system can't be on the fence, make no decision, and "leave it to group admins." One way or the other, someone is going to be unhappy. 
 
--
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 Glazer
 

On 8/17/2019 12:53, J_Catlady wrote:
The system has to do one thing or the other. It has to collapse top-posts, or not. It has to collapse bottom posts, or not. If it does nothing, it's doing something. The system can't be on the fence, make no decision, and "leave it to group admins." One way or the other, someone is going to be unhappy. 

This is not true. It could be per group configuration option.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


 

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:58 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
This is not true. It could be per group configuration option.
Yes, it absolutely could. That's the only other possible solution.
 
--
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


 

Making something like this a group configuration option, though, I don't think would be a good solution. Many people participate in more than one group, and people develop expectations about how the product behaves with respect to their messages. Making quotes behave very differently from one group to another I think might be frustrating and confusing to users. You might use a quote, expect it to be visible, and then find belatedly, upon seeing your post onlist, that you're in one of the groups that collapes top quotes. Or vice-versa. I don't think this would be good for the product as a whole. There are some features that just don't lend themselves well to group configuration options, and IMHO this is one of them. 
--
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 Glazer
 

On 8/17/2019 13:08, J_Catlady wrote:
Making something like this a group configuration option, though, I don't think would be a good solution. Many people participate in more than one group, and people develop expectations about how the product behaves with respect to their messages. Making quotes behave very differently from one group to another I think might be frustrating and confusing to users. You might use a quote, expect it to be visible, and then find belatedly, upon seeing your post onlist, that you're in one of the groups that collapes top quotes. Or vice-versa. I don't think this would be good for the product as a whole. There are some features that just don't lend themselves well to group configuration options, and IMHO this is one of them. 

I think that would depend a lot on how many people really belong to different groups with different administrators. Mark is the only one with such data.

Even so, I think this underestimates human flexibility. For example, Shal is the only one who has ever asked me not to include my sig line, so when I write to GMF, I make an effort to remember to remove it, even if that is the only group for which that is true.

I firmly believe that issues of style can and will vary among groups depending on their culture, their history and so forth and thus believe that as many things as possible should be left to the group administrators to decide.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


 

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 04:20 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Mark is the only one with such data.
I agree that would be a fascinating number, I'm almost sure it's very large (it's clear beta and GMF have a large intersection, as well as do many of the "cats" groups I belong to, for example), and I would say the number doesn't really matter anyway when it comes to wanting a product that behaves consistently in key ways across groups. Claiming the number of people who belong to more than one group might be small is not IMHO a good argument against it. It's almost a philosophical debate at this point - what's consistency, what's a key feature, etc. - so it's time for me to bow out
 
--
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


ro-esp
 

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:53 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

In my opinion, Mark's decision to collapse bottom posts but not top posts
do you mean the opposite?


The system has to do one thing or the other.
Yes, and I prefer the autotrim I've seen in some googlegroups:

Delete everything under the last unindented line

AFAIK, it's already the groups.io-default in digests. It would be nice to be able to have it as general setting

groetjes, Ronaldo


 

ro-esp,
Yes, thanks for that catch, I meant exactly the opposite. I meant that the prior posts at the bottom of a reply are collapsed.

On Aug 18, 2019, at 6:33 AM, ro-esp <ro-esp@dds.nl> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:53 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

In my opinion, Mark's decision to collapse bottom posts but not top posts
do you mean the opposite?


The system has to do one thing or the other.
Yes, and I prefer the autotrim I've seen in some googlegroups:

Delete everything under the last unindented line

AFAIK, it's already the groups.io-default in digests. It would be nice to be able to have it as general setting

groetjes, Ronaldo


--
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 Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 08:03 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
ro-esp,
Excuse me, should have said Ronaldo. :-)
 
--
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 17 Aug 2019 at 12:53, J_Catlady wrote:

The system has to do one thing or the other. It has to collapse top-posts, or
not. It has to collapse bottom posts, or not. If it does nothing, it's doing
something. The system can't be on the fence, make no decision, and "leave it to
group admins." One way or the other, someone is going to be unhappy.
Not collapsing anything is leaving it to group admins to pressure their members
to trim messages properly. Any form of collapsing is the system trying to
enforce some kind of discipline, which will suit some people but not others, as
the discussion here has already proved.

It should also be remembered that very occasionally a reply is not to the body
of the message but to the content of the sig, which is then properly quoted..

Jim

--
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom (needs updating)
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you


 

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 01:36 PM, Jim Fisher wrote:
Not collapsing anything is leaving it to group admins to pressure their members
to trim messages properly.
Exactly right, which is why some decisions (in this case, Mark's decision to collapse the bottom, untrimmed posts) are better than others. It was a PITA before.
 
--
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