Dear All,
I have recently created a new Yahoo Group and it is called simplycomputer3 and you are all most welcome to join.
Regards,
Grenville
From: waltmatheus <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
>To: simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2011, 8:57
>Subject: [Simply Computers] Re: Simplycomputers 3
>
>
>
>
>David, it does not matter how the mail is gathered, we differ on the meaning of a thread.
>
>I cannot scroll down through the replies in this message and see what Vincent(the first responder, in the first thread) wrote in reply to the OP. That's because his reply, although under the same Subject, is part of the first thread and not part of this one.
>
>I also cannot read what Bryce recently wrote about "tree structure", without going to a different thread, because his reply is not part of this thread.
>
>The "tree structure" is clearly visible on the group website wherein the branches("Re:"s) are obvious. But, there are 5 branches in the first thread, 5 branches in this thread and a couple of additional side branches by fggybttm and Bryce. I cannot scroll down within the replies in this thread to read what fggybttm and Bryce wrote(although they are in line with your original response). I have to go to two different threads to read those replies.
>
>Visible "tree structure", Yes.
>Continuous "thread", absolutely not.
>
>A spool of thread has one continuous length of thread on a spool(the Subject), not a number of different pieces of thread all on the same spool.
>
>As far as I'm concerned we have proven that continuous threading is not possible and, since I see no practical benefit in continuing this, these are my last comments in this regard.
>
>
>--- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com, David Ron <david.m.ron@...> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps we don't differ and we are in fact seeing something different. All
>> of those messages are threaded together for me in gmail on android as I type
>> this to you. How are you reading these messages?
>>
>> -David
>
>> On Sep 2, 2011 2:34 PM, "waltmatheus" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>> > I'm not in favor of a new group.
>> >
>> > David, you and I differ on just what is a "fully intact" thread.
>> >
>> > This thread (number 2) has Roger(the OP), David, Walt, David, and now
>> Walt.
>> >
>> > The original thread (1), has Roger, Vince, Walt, C. Michael, Vince, and
>> Vince.
>> >
>> > And, then there's a third thread. Roger, and Foggy.
>> >
>> > All threads under the same Subject, but still 3 separate threads, not 1
>> "fully intact" thread.
>
>> > --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com, David Ron <david.m.ron@>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The thread is still fully intact for me on both Thunderbird and gmail's
>> web site. I don't exactly see how switching to a new group would make it
>> work any better.
>> >>
>> >> --David
>
>> >> On 09/02/2011 12:16 PM, waltmatheus wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Roger, in less than 12 hours your "Simplycomputers 3" thread has broken
>> down. That is exactly what will happen in any newly formed group.
>> >> >
>> >> > David replied to your original message, with no consideration given to
>> any members who had already responded. However, the others that replied did
>> so in-thread so that there are sequential responses within the last message.
>> Those responses are now lost to this second thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > Some would say responding to the same Subject(Re: Simplycomputers 3)
>> keeps the comments in thread. I don't believe that to be true. My comments
>> now are part of this second thread, rather than a continuation of the
>> initial thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a classic example of how and why threading goes awry.
>
>> >> > --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:
>> simplycomputers2%40yahoogroups.com>, David Ron <david.m.ron@> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yahoo Groups is not very good about threading the messages on the web
>> site. I think this becomes most apparent across threads that last longer
>> than a week. I've noticed that when I read messages offline, threading is
>> preserved almost perfectly. If you are anything more than a casual reader in
>> this group, I strongly recommend reading through e-mail. If you tell us your
>> mail client of choice, we can provide directions to making sure your mail
>> gets into a folder to keep your inbox free of group-spam.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --David
>
>> >> > > On 09/01/2011 10:58 PM, RogerX19 wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Vincent, David, Walter, and all:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Tho I love this board, it seems that the threads are all mixed up!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Answers to posts get mixed in with answers to other posts ...
>> threads seem to get splintered, with some answers going to one, and some to
>> another!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I see we have 10,000 + registered members and how many messages?
>> Over 208 thousand?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Just a thought: is it time to move on to Simplycomputers3 ?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > We could leave "2" right here, and just leave a final message to
>> all to join us in "3".
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Maybe that would get things back on track?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > rogerX
>
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.