http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=282768


in reply to Automatic Re-ing with numbers

Personally, I vastly prefer a single 'Re: '. That's how almost all usenet and mail readers do.

Abigail

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Aug 11, 2003 at 12:52 UTC
    I prefer seeing the depth, because that tells me how off on a tangent the node is likely to be. Sometimes, I want to see the tangent. Sometimes, I don't. It's very disconcerting to see "Re: foobar" and find that it's 9 replies deep, not 1 reply deep.

    What I would love to see is two links off of Newest Nodes - the one we see now and Head (or something similar). I often find myself clicking on a link, then not even reading it until I click on the head node. I like having context when I read and I can't keep the context of the 10 threads I'm reading throughout the day straight.

    ------
    We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

    The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brain-meltingly complicated. -- TheDamian, Exegesis 6

    Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

[reply]
      What I would love to see is two links off of Newest Nodes - the one we see now and Head (or something similar). I often find myself clicking on a link, then not even reading it until I click on the head node. I like having context when I read and I can't keep the context of the 10 threads I'm reading throughout the day straight.

      I seldomly try to keep track of a thread. The UI of Perlmonks makes it so much harder to do than for instance on Usenet. Perlmonks doesn't give you a way to keep track of what you have read, and what you haven't (well, unless you read at most 40 posts, and vote for every post you read). Newest Nodes just don't do it.

      Furthermore, people have the tendency of to not quote what they are responding to. Which means that if you try to keep track of a thread, you often encounter a reply that requires one or more clicks to parent posts to see what they are replying to.

      Abigail

[reply]
        people have the tendency of to not quote what they are responding to.
        Which they shouldn't (when they're not replying to a specific point in a long post, anyway), since we have a perfect archive here. Even if you read a reply to a post 4 year old post written 3 years before you ever first visited the site, the context is still available. Quoting offers much less on PerlMonks than on Usenet.
        The UI of Perlmonks makes it so much harder to [keep track of a thread] than for instance on Usenet.

        I do agree. Which is funny since the information is there - unlike on Usenet, where it depends on a lot of factors whether you will have the full context of a post.

        Maybe it should be an option to always show the parent of a node you're viewing.

        Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]

        Please don't encourage PM to start the trend of fully quoting everything including the quoted quotes and the quotes those quotes quoted (ad nauseum) from previous posts per Usenet/mailing lists.

        I really hate that!

        You open a new msg, wade through 100 lines of quotes only to find a one liner of "Me too" or "I disagree" or worse, a funny quip. Gah!

        Examine what is said, not who speaks.
        "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
        "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -Richard Buckminster Fuller
        If I understand your problem, I can solve it! Of course, the same can be said for you.
[reply]
      I prefer seeing the depth, because that tells me how off on a tangent the node is likely to be.

      the node depth is not a consistent measure of subject relevance. occasionally, replies between monks approach conversation level, and the depth increases dramatically. this does not mean they have moved off topic.

      for instance, i've seen nits worked out of algorithms presented previously, and not patched in the nodes above. if you're unfamiliar with the subject of the thread, and the authors involved in the discussion, it's difficult to generalize relevancy from node depth alone. so perhaps instead of writing that the depth tells you the relevancy, it would be more accurate to say it is one measure of relevancy. no?

      ~Particle *accelerates*

[reply]
Re: Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by Juerd (Abbot) on Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19 UTC

    That's how almost all usenet and mail readers do.

    Almost all usenet and mail programs quote the original post automatically.
    Almost all usenet and mail programs put some "Foo wrote" above that quote.
    Almost all usenet and mail programs use "> " to indent quotes.
    Almost all usenet and mail programs do something special with "-- ".
    Almost all usenet and mail programs wrap long lines automatically when editing or sending a message.
    Almost all usenet and mail programs some method of attaching files and retrieving attached files.

    Perl Monks is neither usenet nor mail.

    I like the stacked "Re: "s on Perl Monks. I like single "Re: " for usenet and mail.

    Update: PS: I'm not saying that Abigail should not edit node titles.

    Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }

[reply]
      Perl Monks is neither usenet nor mail.

      I didn't say it is. But it doesn't hurt to look away from one's navel and consider how others are dealing with things. And sometimes, others do it better, IMO.

      Abigail

[reply]
      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Perl Monks Discussion