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

Re: Messages Re: Message Replies

by Sherlock (Deacon)
on Jul 06, 2001 at 20:05 UTC ( #94502=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Messages Re: Message Replies

Somehow, I just don't think this is really necessary. At first glance, I think it would be more appealing to see who it was that replied to you but, should it really matter? Are you going to handle the reply differently depending on who it was that replied to you? Frankly, I would assume that I would see that I have a reply and simply go to it, regardless of who replied. I really doubt that this is what you intended, but it would seem that the only real use for this would be to be able to ignore posts from users you didn't care about and check posts from users that you did care about.

I don't mean to be condemning/condescending or whatever other adjective you might put toward this post. Frankly, I think it would be more attractive to post replies the way you had stated and I doubt it would be very difficult to implement. All I wonder is if it's really necessary. I have a feeling that the other monks here (myself incldued) would handle those messages exactly the same way we handle them now: Check the box and click on the reply.

Once case where it might be useful, though, would be to check against if you had replied to your own post. I have, once or twice in the past, posted a follow-up question to my own node and I get the message that I got a reply to my node...from myself. Perhaps those messages could be eliminated.

- Sherlock

Update: In reply to your reply of this reply *grin*, tadman, you could, of course, click on the first link in your message from root, which identifies the node that you had originally posted. This would allow you to see all of those replies on a single page. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that this change is bad - I just wonder if it's necessary.

Skepticism is the source of knowledge as much as knowledge is the source of skepticism.


Comment on Re: Messages Re: Message Replies
Re^2: Messages Re: Message Replies
by tadman (Prior) on Jul 06, 2001 at 20:21 UTC
    Yes, I will likely look at all of them, but I would rather look at them in the order I choose than the order I'm given. If you have a whole pile of replies and you have limited time, you have to open each one and see for yourself. This is, as I'm trying to say, silly since the server knows who replied, it just isn't telling you.

    When I get a bunch of e-mail messages from people, I don't have to guess based on the subject who it's from. I'm merely proposing that these "messages" should follow the same type of standard as a regular /msg message.

    Where it becomes increasingly frustrating is if you get five replies to a single message, all with exactly the same title. I can easily lose track of which ones I have read, and end up having to open them up all over again. I don't remember the node_id's, but I do remember the people, so with a name/message pair, I wouldn't have to go through all that trouble.

    Some people have undertaken a program of "building brand awareness" by putting their name in the reply title, which does help, but I'm not trying to encourage that practice.
      That happens to me, too. The stack of replies shifts around when the screen refreshes, and I'm not sure which I've already clicked on.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://94502]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (3)
As of 2014-07-29 03:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (211 votes), past polls