[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [SOT] Fast typing and threading...



James Wilkinson wrote:
> Ed Greshko wrote:
>> 1.  If one wishes to change the name of a topic it is not sufficient to
>> simply reply to a given topic and change the subject.  The headers in the
>> reply to the original topic will remain intact and will not be broken into a
>> separate thread by some/most (I didn't take a survey) mail readers.
> 
> Is this actually desired, though?

Usually it is.  Otherwise, why mess with the subject line at all?
Normally the subject line is altered to say:

"Now talking about this" (Was: Talking about that)

This happens normally not with the OP but when the content of the message
strays from the original question/subject to something entirely different.

> Sometimes it will be -- a correspondent may wish to take one throwaway
> line and effectively start a new topic based on that concept. In such a
> case, a new thread might be the Right Thing.
> 
> But usually, a topic will drift over a number of posts. My experience is
> that on most forums the subject will drift and only some time later
> someone will think to change the subject line.

Correct, and since they are changing the subject line they are indicating
the topic has changed it is logical that the a new thread is desired.

> In this case, deliberately breaking the thread is *not* what is wanted,
> since it will separate the drifted topic into two threads -- the

If the new subject is of the one I described above, it is easy to determine
the original thread.  Search on subject.

Sorry if I was not clear.  But I'm talking about situations where the
original topic was "How do I clean an oven" that has stray into "Why a Ford
is better than a Buick".

> original drifted messages and other responses, and the split topic with
> the new title. Usually these will sort some way apart in the subject
> list, readers will not be aware of the other thread, and you will end up
> with related branches of the same conversation in multiple places. This
> is usually what the users of threaded e-mail clients *explicitly* wish
> to avoid.
> 
> Perhaps you would like correspondents to post one short message in the
> old thread pointing readers to a new separate thread for the diverged
> topic. I have not found this to be accepted practice on mailing lists or
> Usenet. Others may feel that simply changing the name of the thread
> later (so at least readers can identify that these posts are not on the
> original topic and ignore them if they wish) is easier.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]