Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
XP is just a number

RE: how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-)

by muppetBoy (Pilgrim)
on May 17, 2000 at 21:29 UTC ( #12182=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-)

IMHO: Replies to replies should probably have Re: prepended to them. It would be clearer to give the Original replies a different title, but this would make scanning the newest nodes confusing. I think the way things stand at the minute the Re:Re:'s are necessary to avoid a 'flat' discussion which would not always make sense.
  • Comment on RE: how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: how many levels of 'RE:' do we need :-)
by misty (Hermit) on May 17, 2000 at 21:51 UTC
    as someone somewhere already suggested, Re(3): or similar would look much better than Re:Re:Re:
      Or you could do a RE(username): subject where the user name is the author of the comment you are replying to.
        Your idea has my vote. I like Re(BigJoe): Subject or combining the two, you can do Re(BigJoe,3): Subject

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://12182]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (3)
As of 2019-07-19 02:05 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found