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

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

I don't know what e-mail digests are; or why carroted portions have to be
read.  I would appreciate the info.

Philip Martin
martinpl3_@_earthlink.net



> [Original Message]
> From: Philip Martin <martinpl3_@_earthlink.net>
> To: Christopher Thurner <cthurner_@_adelphia.net>; Mailgroup (E-mail)
<erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
> Cc: <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
> Date: 7/3/2004 9:58:56 PM
> Subject: 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
> >
>
>

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