[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: (erielack) Some list things (i.e. message length due to including previous messages in response)

Are there any "shes" on the list?  I believe that one of the Browns is a
lady.  And Barbara Mersereau, a new name on the list, is too.  So you see,
the list is teeming with "shes."
On these "grandfather posts," the new material is usually at the top.  I
just read what interests me.  I don't know much about e-mail editing; I'm
just a happy idiot.  (Pardon all the carrots with this post.)

Philip Martin
martinpl3_@_earthlink.net



> [Original Message]
> From: Christopher Turner <cthurner_@_adelphia.net>
> To: Mailgroup (E-mail) <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
> Date: 7/3/2004 6:48:57 PM
> Subject: (erielack) Some list things (i.e. message length due to
including previous messages in response)
>
> Listers:
>
> Message length has again been raised as an issue with listmembers as it 
> occurs with people simply hitting 'reply' on their browsers.  I agree
that 
> it is causing an unnecessary increase in list length and is an issue with 
> members regardless of the form they chose to receive their mail in (i.e. 
> real time vrs. daily digests).
>
> On 6/30 and 7/1, both Dave Goessling and Dale Madison expressed their
views 
> on the burgeoning size of list messages and the amount of time and 
> inconvenience of reading them.  Their posts are as follows:
>
> In-Reply-To: <200407010932.i619W1Vq084256_@_net.bluemoon.net>
> Date:	Thu, 01 Jul 2004 09:08:05 -0400
> From:	Dale Madison <gobills_@_ncweb.com>
> Subject:	(erielack) Digest Mode
> >Date:	Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:42:20 -0400
> >From:	David M Goessling <dgoessling_@_lucent.com>
> >Subject:	(erielack) Re:some list things
> >
> >not EL related, but list related:
> >
> >I'm getting a bit cross-eyed trying to read the list lately! (I get the 
> digest
> >version) - everyone seems to be leaving *every* bit of *every* previous
> >message
> >in a thread, whether it's relevant or not. So, just a friendly request to
> >maybe
> >do of a bit of selective editing when replying. thanks
>
>
> I second that request for the same reason.  Thanks all.
>
>
> Dale
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with both of them, both in form and in spirit.  I 
> offer the following observation of mine as a most illuminating example:
>
> In regards to a recent thread of safety concerns with Comet V's discussed 
> earlier this week (i.e. subsequent to 6/27), one message towards the end
of 
> the digest, took up approx. 1/3 of the total space devoted in that day's 
> digest.  I kept clicking below the scroll bar in its space or hitting the 
> 'page down' key for what seemed to be an eternity.
>
> To top it off, when I reached the bottom of the message in question,
there 
> was seven (7) carets (> symbol) between the margin and the text of the 
> first message that had been responded to.  Carets (>) are added by the 
> system each time a message is replied to.  The number of carets shown 
> before each line of text in the message, the number of times it's been 
> included in a reply.  In other words, through the beauty of the 'reply' 
> function on your email system, the same message had been included through 
> subsequent replies 7 times further.  I thought I was going to be
hypnotized 
> by watching the number of carets increase from one, then a few pages
down, 
> to two, a few more pages down to three etc.
>
> This in my sincerest opinion has gotten out of hand and results in a 
> significant increase in reading time for members and a major
inconvenience 
> /annoyance.
>
> What is perceived as a major convenience for one person (i.e. author of
the 
> email who is responding) and a minor inconvenience for the reader, is
very 
> different in reality.   A small concession to the author ends up as a
major 
> inconvenience for the readers, who have to sift through all the old 
> correspondence being included over and over again.
>
> It is, in my sincerest opinion, not explainable by just merely arguing
that 
> it's a few 'page down' strokes to skip over it.  These are many, many
'page 
> down' strokes that are being done by the dozens of people who read these 
> messages every day.
>
> In other words, a small convenience for one person (i.e. the author) is 
> bringing about a great inconvenience for the multiple readers of the list 
> (i.e. the originator of an email benefits (one person), the many readers
of 
> the list do not (several people)).
>
> My suggestion for list policy, which I offer as purely suggestion for 
> consideration and debate among the list members, is that responders to
list 
> threads cut and paste the most recent posting they are reply to, thus 
> eliminating the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. generation of 'ancestor' replies that 
> add unnecessary bulk to the list and makes the list far more readable and 
> less of a chore.  The result would be the author's reply and a reference 
> only to the latest post he / she (are there any she's on the list??) has 
> responded to, which the reader can refer to establish the subject matter 
> the reply is being made to.
>
> I will supply an example to illustrate.  In the instance I mentioned
above, 
> there were seven 'ancestor' messages.  Under my suggestion, 'ancestor' 
> generations 2 - 7 would be eliminated with just the reply and the 1st 
> 'ancestor' generation remaining (also note here that the 7th one also 
> appeared in generations 1 - 6, so we were treated to the 7th one 7 times, 
> 6th one 6 times, and so forth ....  this certainly well illustrates how 
> 'clogged' the digest version has become!!).
>
> The list has archives, so if one wishes to 'drill down' further into the 
> genesis of the thread it would merely be the case of visiting the
archives 
> on the date the message being replied to was originated and then going
back 
> down through the 'layers' by date.
>
> I just wanted to share my observations and suggestions for improving the 
> list reading experience with my fellow members.
>
> I welcome you comments.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Thurner
>

------------------------------