Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Automatic Re-ing with numbers

by liz (Monsignor)
on Aug 10, 2003 at 20:51 UTC ( #282681=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Please excuse me if this has been discussed before: searching on very common keywords did not provide with any conclusions.

Many monks change the prefix of the title of response nodes by setting

Re^(number):
instead of just keeping the extra "Re: " that was prefixed. I like this a lot, but frequently forget to do it myself.

So, lazy as I am, I wonder why this process isn't automatic? Basically do a:

$title = "Re: $title" unless $title =~ s#^Re^?(\d*):#'Re^'.(defined $1 ? $1 + 1 : 2).':'#e;
on the title of a node before being placed in the form. Does this make sense?

Liz

Comment on Automatic Re-ing with numbers
Download Code
Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by crouchingpenguin (Priest) on Aug 10, 2003 at 22:52 UTC

    Vanity posting/tagging.... see jeffa's home node and vanity tagging.

    Update: Oops, not exactly re:(integer) like you suggested...


    cp
    ----
    "Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic."
Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by sauoq (Abbot) on Aug 11, 2003 at 00:22 UTC

    I'm pretty sure it has been discussed, but I wasn't able to find the thread.

    I don't like the idea for a few reasons. First, I'm perfectly happy with a growing list of "Re"s most of the time. I'm used to it from mailing lists and such. Second, people do it differently. Some change "Re: Re:" to "Re2" some change it to "Re^2"... And third, given vanity prefixes like "(Ovid)" or "•", it would be much harder to do correctly than your simple regular expression implies.

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
    
      I'm used to it from mailing lists and such.
      Hmm? Mails tend to have a single "Re:" with no indication of depth. All of the mailers I've ever used keep it that way, and therefor so do the mailing lists. I can hardly find any "Re: Re:" mails in my mboxes and none with "Re: Re: Re:" or more.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        Mails tend to have a single "Re:" with no indication of depth.

        Of course you are right. I just seem to be living in the past. I did a little zgrep'ing on my archives and found many more occurences of multiple "re"s from 1996 then in more recent years. And, it was worse; there were all sorts of ugly combos of "Re" and "RE" and even a couple with "re".

        *shrug* So, those long strings of "Re"s look rather normal to me. What can I say?

        -sauoq
        "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
        
Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Aug 11, 2003 at 04:49 UTC
Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers (searching)
by tye (Cardinal) on Aug 11, 2003 at 06:16 UTC
    searching on very common keywords did not provide with any conclusions

    I hit super search and looked for nodes the had "re:" in the title but that weren't replies and found how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-), Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply, Title Re: collapsing revisited, and "Re:" getting out of hand.. If you search only PMD root nodes, then you'll find almost nothing but those. (:

    About halfway down on tye's scratchpad (search for "Re: ", with the space and quotes) you'll find some work I did on the subject. But I've since noticed that there are styles that aren't properly handled by it. There is a field in the database for "depth" of a reply. Currently, this isn't being used. If we make the fixes required to have this field be accurate (even after nodes are moved), then there might be some hope of allowing users to collapse "Re:"s automatically.

    Note that I adopted the "Re^$N: " style when I noticed that it was the most commonly used one (it wouldn't have been my first choice for format). I also switched from prepending "(tye)" onto titles to appending " ($summary)" onto the end (because I strongly prefer unique node titles). This is less obnoxious/distracting and usually gives a better indication of what the node is about. I encourage others to follow suit, but don't have any delusions about it being possible to enforce such much less plans to do so. :)

                    - tye
Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Aug 11, 2003 at 06:53 UTC
    Personally, I vastly prefer a single 'Re: '. That's how almost all usenet and mail readers do.

    Abigail

      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.

        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*

        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

      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' }

        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

Re: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by Juerd (Abbot) on Aug 12, 2003 at 10:21 UTC

    Many monks change the prefix of the title of response nodes by setting Re^(number):

    I still don't understand that. Shouldn't Perl Monks use Re**(number): instead? :)

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

      Maybe it should use "Re: "x$depth? What colour is the bike shed?

      Makeshifts last the longest.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://282681]
Approved by antirice
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-12-22 09:54 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (114 votes), past polls