First, let me apologize to all. I previously wrote that those would be my last comments and here I am responding again.
David, you have totally misinterpreted what I have previously submitted.
1. I am NOT now, nor have I ever had any trouble reading group messages, therefore, I need no workaround.
2. You wrote: "threading is preserved almost perfectly". When I wrote what I can't do in the messages I was making the point that threading is NOT preserved anywhere near perfectly, but, the tree structure is.
3. Group messages are in a tree structure, NOT in a continuous thread.
4. At no time did I ever suggest starting a new group. To the contrary, I pointed out that continuous threading breaks down quickly, doesn't work here, and will not work in any other group.
I too am not trying to argue with anyone. I merely tried, and apparently failed, to prove that threading is not "fully intact". In spite of what you want me to believe, I know that tree structure works, threading does not.
--- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com, David Ron <david.m.ron@...> wrote:
>
> Walt,
> This group is all about helping people. You seem to be having trouble
> reading group messages because the group web site breaks the threads up
> sometimes. I completely agree with you. I'm not arguing with you. I'm
> trying to help you. There are other ways to read the group messages
> instead of using the group's web site. If you use these other tools,
> you won't have the problem. Again, I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying
> to offer up a workaround.
>
> On the other hand, switching to another group won't fix the problem.
> The broken tool is the Yahoo Groups web site, and that would still be a
> problem on the new group.
>
> --David
>
>
> On 09/03/2011 12:57 AM, waltmatheus wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > <mailto:simplycomputers2%40yahoogroups.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
> > <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.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
> > <mailto:simplycomputers2%40yahoogroups.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> <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
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/simplycomputers2
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.