Topics

locked Threads


Frances
 

Hi again

I was wondering how threads work.

We have a travel discussion forum so some wording might appear on different posts and appear to be a thread. Like “Rome hotel”.

It is particularly important if someone has muted a thread and now wants new posts.

So, does the algorithm just see the word order and group it as a thread? Is there a time component? Can old threads be restarted by someone using the same words and word order?

Frances


 

Frances,

Here's how a thread happens. Someone sends a message. Others reply to that message, or to other replies. All of those are in one thread. If someone replies, but changes the subject, then that becomes the start of a new thread. If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply) that happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still considered a new thread. The system figures this out by mainly by reference information encoded in the email headers by everyone's email programs. There is no time component.

If someone mutes a thread, they're only muting that particular thread, not every message with a particular subject.

Hope this helps.

Mark

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Frances <travel@...> wrote:
Hi again

I was wondering how threads work.

We have a travel discussion forum so some wording might appear on different posts and appear to be a thread. Like “Rome hotel”.

It is particularly important if someone has muted a thread and now wants new posts.

So, does the algorithm just see the word order and group it as a thread? Is there a time component? Can old threads be restarted by someone using the same words and word order?

Frances




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/3357?uid=3
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=3
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/leave
Group Home: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta
Contact Group Owner: beta+owner@groups.io
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



 

Mark,

If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply) that
happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still
considered a new thread. The system figures this out by mainly by
reference information encoded in the email headers by everyone's email
programs. There is no time component.
Hmm, using the absence of the In-Reply-To or References fields to mark a new thread has the problem that neither field is mandatory. I don't know if there are any major email services/clients that don't support one or the other (or both), but that was the usual motivation for using "Or" logic rather than "And" (the subject matches or the field matches an existing member of the thread).

But maybe that's no longer (much of) an issue. I like the way using "And" neatly solves the "stale thread" problem without having an ad-hoc time limit.

-- Shal


ro-esp
 

markf@corp.groups.io sendis:

Frances,

Here's how a thread happens. Someone sends a message. Others reply to that
message, or to other replies. All of those are in one thread. If someone
replies, but changes the subject, then that becomes the start of a new
thread.
that's how it should be

If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply)
that happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still
considered a new thread.
That could be somewhat problematic when someone replies to part(s) of a digest, wouldn't it?

groetjes, Ronaldo


--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net


 

From all the data I've seen (mainly the email corpuses I assembled when I started working on groups.io back in January), In-Reply-To and/or References are more or less universally supported by email clients, and have been for at least a decade. So, I'm pretty comfortable relying on them. Plus, I'm not crazy about having an arbitrary time factor.

Mark

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
Mark,

> If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply) that
> happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still
> considered a new thread. The system figures this out by mainly by
> reference information encoded in the email headers by everyone's email
> programs. There is no time component.

Hmm, using the absence of the In-Reply-To or References fields to mark a new thread has the problem that neither field is mandatory. I don't know if there are any major email services/clients that don't support one or the other (or both), but that was the usual motivation for using "Or" logic rather than "And" (the subject matches or the field matches an existing member of the thread).

But maybe that's no longer (much of) an issue. I like the way using "And" neatly solves the "stale thread" problem without having an ad-hoc time limit.

-- Shal



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/3357?uid=3
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=3
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/leave
Group Home: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta
Contact Group Owner: beta+owner@groups.io
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



 

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:27 AM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:

If someone sends a completely new email (compose instead of reply)
that happens to have the exact same subject as another thread, it's still
considered a new thread.

That could be somewhat problematic when someone replies to part(s) of a digest, wouldn't it?

You cannot reply to digests on groups.io, the replies are blackholed (ideally they should bounce back; it's on the todo list).

Mark


 

Mark,

You cannot reply to digests on groups.io, the replies are blackholed
(ideally they should bounce back; it's on the todo list).
In Yahoo Groups the "Fully featured" digests each message has a mailto: link that allows one to reply to that message. The mailto: URL syntax allows them to provide To, Subject, and even body text, but I don't know that it could allow the placement of a In-Reply-To or other arbitrary field.

The other option for the reader of a digest is a link to reply via the web site. That brings one to the message in the archive, possibly with the reply compose window already open. That could work, as the normal reply would have the necessary field.

-- Shal


Frances
 

You can't reply to the whole digest email, but it looks like you have set it up so you can reply to a specific message in the digest.  I clicked on the Reply to this Message. in the email and it works as long as you are signed in to Groups.io on the web.
If you are not, you don't see the "groups reply" button.
It would be useful if it brought you to a login screen if you weren't already logged in, then you can login and then go to the specific message. Each message does have its own URL, so this should be possible! 


 

Good point! I've changed it so that if clicking the Reply link from a digest (all digests from now on, since it's a slightly different URL), it will make sure you're logged in first. It will also open the reply box and set focus to it.

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Frances <travel@...> wrote:
You can't reply to the whole digest email, but it looks like you have set it up so you can reply to a specific message in the digest.  I clicked on the Reply to this Message. in the email and it works as long as you are signed in to Groups..io on the web.
If you are not, you don't see the "groups reply" button.
It would be useful if it brought you to a login screen if you weren't already logged in, then you can login and then go to the specific message. Each message does have its own URL, so this should be possible!