Posting question...

"Scott Baryenbruch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Since the following has happened to me a couple of times now I wanted to find out what is
going on:

If I select post a follow up/reply to this message when I want to respond to a message rather than
appearing as a reply to the selected message my response ends up posting as an entirely new
message. Was that clear? What am I doing wrong?

Probably hitting "post a new message" instead of "reply group".

Bill "try replying to me (on group) and see" S.

[email hidden] (Scott Baryenbruch) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Since the following has happened to me a couple of times now I wanted to find out what is
going on:

If I select post a follow up/reply to this message when I want to respond to a message rather than
appearing as a reply to the selected message my response ends up posting as an entirely new
message. Was that clear? What am I doing wrong? SAB

Dear Scott,

Well, it's possible that the problem is that you're using google groups to post, like me. There are,
shall we say, anomalies.

Sometimes threads mysteriously appear twice as duplicates. After a while, the duplication begins to
fail and the two threads no longer mirror each other perfectly.

Sometimes when the threads are being updated, the new listing will appear, you can pick a new
thread, your screen will show your brilliant followup, and when you push the button to post it,
you'll get a message saying that the thread cannot be located--the list of threads will have
un-updated for a few minutes and the new thread will have vanished.

Sometimes a followup to a thread will simply go haywire and end up attached to another thread. A
month ago, John Forrest Tomlinson and I were squabbling happilyl in one thread and abruptly found
our exchange transferred into an utterly unrelated thread, shoved into the middle of a blameless
post by Sheldon Brown--startled hell out of me.

While I haven't had the pleasure of any followup spawning a new thread on its own, you've given me
something to look forward to. Given what we pay for this service, it's best to view the glitches as
entertainment.

Good luck,

Carl Fogel

If you use Outlook Express to post your messages it would be difficult to get these problems.

Also, with OE you will find your messages appear on the list more quickly.

Hope this helps.

--
Lewis.

tinyurl.comr3r6Open ↗ .........................

*******************************

"Scott Baryenbruch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Since the following has happened to me a couple of times now I wanted to find out what is
going on:

If I select post a follow up/reply to this message when I want to respond to a message rather than
appearing as a reply to the selected message my response ends up posting as an entirely new
message. Was that clear? What am I doing wrong? SAB

Lewis Campbell <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Also, with OE you will find your messages appear on the list more quickly.

errrr, why would that be?
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

Well, if I knew, I'd be glad to tell you.

I'm just telling you how it appears to me.

--
Lewis.

tinyurl.comr3r6Open ↗ .........................

*******************************

"David Reuteler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Lewis Campbell <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Also, with OE you will find your messages appear on the list more

quickly.

Quoted message said:

errrr, why would that be?
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

I think I was making the mistake of confusing this for a typical messageboard. I am pretty sure I
changed the subject heading when posting a follow up which resulted in the new thread. SAB

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Scott Baryenbruch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Since the following has happened to me a couple of times now I wanted to find out what is
going on:

If I select post a follow up/reply to this message when I want to respond to a message rather
than appearing as a reply to the selected message my response ends up posting as an entirely new
message. Was that clear? What am I doing wrong?

Probably hitting "post a new message" instead of "reply group".

Bill "try replying to me (on group) and see" S.

"Carl Fogel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Scott Baryenbruch) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since the following has happened to me a couple of times now I wanted to find out what is
going on:

If I select post a follow up/reply to this message when I want to respond to a message rather
than appearing as a reply to the selected message my response ends up posting as an entirely new
message. Was that clear? What am I doing wrong? SAB

Dear Scott,

Well, it's possible that the problem is that you're using google groups to post, like me. There
are, shall we say, anomalies.

You guys might want to check out news.individual.netnews.individual.netOpen ↗

It's a full-fledged, free news server, meaning you can use a regular news client, such as
Xnews, FreeAgent, Netscape Messenger, or even the dreaded Outlook Express (which I admit to
using while in Windoze). It updates more quickly than Google, has a reasonable message
retention period, and is fast.

--Josh (no affiliation, just a satisfied customer)

[email hidden] (Scott Baryenbruch) spake thusly on or about Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:03:03 UTC

-> I think I was making the mistake of confusing this for a typical -> messageboard. I am
pretty sure I changed the subject heading when -> posting a follow up which resulted in the new
thread. -> SAB

changing the title should still result in a followup message. problem is that some clients and web
interfaces do not handle threading according to the ancient standards of usenet.

--
I hurt before the ride so fibro gives me a head start on the rest of the pack. silver lining?
[email hidden]

Scott Baryenbruch said:

I think I was making the mistake of confusing this for a typical messageboard. I am pretty sure I
changed the subject heading when posting a follow up which resulted in the new thread.

Don't top-post, it gives you crabs.

Google's reading interface presents a change of subject within a thread as a separate thread. If you
plan to read much news you should probably use a real newsreader.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

David Damerell said:

Scott Baryenbruch said:

I think I was making the mistake of confusing this for a typical messageboard. I am pretty sure I
changed the subject heading when posting a follow up which resulted in the new thread.

Don't top-post, it gives you crabs.

Google's reading interface presents a change of subject within a thread as a separate thread.

That must be bloody annoying. I wonder why they'd do that?

--
Benjamin Lewis

You roll my log, and I will roll yours. -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Benjamin Lewis <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Scott Baryenbruch said:

I think I was making the mistake of confusing this for a typical messageboard. I am pretty sure
I changed the subject heading when posting a follow up which resulted in the new thread.

Don't top-post, it gives you crabs.

Google's reading interface presents a change of subject within a thread as a separate thread.

That must be bloody annoying. I wonder why they'd do that?

Dear Benjamin,

Possibly because a new subject suggests a new thread?

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

David Damerell said:

Scott Baryenbruch <[email hidden]> wrote:
>I think I was making the mistake of confusing this for a typical messageboard. I am pretty sure
>I changed the subject heading when posting a follow up which resulted in the new thread.
Google's reading interface presents a change of subject within a thread as a separate thread.

That must be bloody annoying. I wonder why they'd do that?

It's quite a common design deficiency in newsreaders, especially those that acquired threading at a
later date.

Quoted message said:

Possibly because a new subject suggests a new thread?

I really ought to put up a Web page about common misconceptions about news.

Are you aware that every article contains a References: line, a list of its parent articles up the
thread? Hence there is no need to speculate about whether a new subject represents a new thread.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

David Damerell <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

David Damerell wrote:
>Scott Baryenbruch <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>I think I was making the mistake of confusing this for a typical messageboard. I am pretty
>>sure I changed the subject heading when posting a follow up which resulted in the new thread.
>Google's reading interface presents a change of subject within a thread as a separate thread.
That must be bloody annoying. I wonder why they'd do that?

It's quite a common design deficiency in newsreaders, especially those that acquired threading at
a later date.

Quoted message said:

Possibly because a new subject suggests a new thread?

I really ought to put up a Web page about common misconceptions about news.

Are you aware that every article contains a References: line, a list of its parent articles up the
thread? Hence there is no need to speculate about whether a new subject represents a new thread.

Dear David,

Are you aware that this is what shows up as your "References:" line, at least as shown under
Google's original format display?

<[email hidden]> <[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

I speculate that this is next to useless for ordinary purposes when compared to:

Re: Posting question...

Of course, other newsreaders may work hard enough to connect the original addressing to the original
subject, but many people expect a different story when the headline changes.

When you put up your Web page, do try to remember that most of us are interested in the brakes, the
gas pedal, and the steering wheel because we want to get somewhere, not in the precise shape of the
piston rings.

And remember to make your Web page appeal to a somewhat broader audience than the users of the trn3
newsreader on linux systems--it's undoubtedly a fine program on an excellent operating system, but
it's also perhaps just a touch insular in that it appeals to a somewhat smaller computer-mad
audience. (Possibly that's why it doesn't show up in the statistics of who uses what here.)

A newspaper edited to appeal to the print-shop foreman rarely succeeds. But good luck--a page
explaining the details of a broad range of newsreaders, newsgroup servers, and various posting
anomalies would be well worth reading.

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel said:

Dear David,

Are you aware that this is what shows up as your "References:" line, at least as shown under
Google's original format display?

<[email hidden]> <[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>

I speculate that this is next to useless for ordinary purposes when compared to:

Re: Posting question...

Not at all; this is completely insufficient to restore the tree-structure of a thread, and makes it
difficult to figure who is responding to whom.

Imagine downloading a thread for the first time, and seeing one original post, and 100 responses,
all sorted randomly.

--
Benjamin Lewis

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that
ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown

Carl Fogel said:

And remember to make your Web page appeal to a somewhat broader audience than the users of the
trn3 newsreader on linux systems--it's undoubtedly a fine program on an excellent operating
system, but it's also perhaps just a touch insular in that it appeals to a somewhat smaller
computer-mad audience. (Possibly that's why it doesn't show up in the statistics of who uses
what here.)

There are plenty of other decent newsreaders available for various operating systems which handle
threading properly. I see no compelling reason to break the behaviour of a web-based reader. If you
send a response to an article, it should appear as a response to that article, even if you change
the subject to indicate topic-drift. This is intuitive behaviour, not some crazy madness that unix
freaks have dreamed up.

--
Benjamin Lewis

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that
ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown

Rick Onanian said:

David Damerell said:

Carl Fogel said:

Possibly because a new subject suggests a new thread?

Quoted message said:

its parent articles up the thread? Hence there is no need to speculate about whether a new
subject represents a new thread.

I suspect that Carl meant that the reason for changing the subject line is because the subject of
the thread has changed. That's actually a pretty good reason to separate the thread,

I don't see why it's a good reason to separate the thread. If you want to start a new thread, start
a new thread. A followup to an article should *appear* as a followup to an article. That's what
threading is about.

It's easy enough, in a threaded newsreader, to see when the subject has changed, and kill off or
skip these subthreads if you're not interested in them. If you separate them into different threads,
you lose information, and don't gain anything.

Quoted message said:

except for the (quite common) occasion when somebody only makes a minor modification to the
subject line (example: "Should I wear a helmet" became "Should I NOT wear a helmet", but the
content remained the same).

How do you decide what a "minor modification" is?

Quoted message said:

When somebody uses their newsreader's followup command, it keeps the References: header line the
same even if the user changes the Subject header line and the content.

Just as it should.

--
Benjamin Lewis

You shall be rewarded for a dastardly deed.

David Damerell said:

Carl Fogel said:

Possibly because a new subject suggests a new thread?

Quoted message said:

its parent articles up the thread? Hence there is no need to speculate about whether a new subject
represents a new thread.

I suspect that Carl meant that the reason for changing the subject line is because the subject of
the thread has changed. That's actually a pretty good reason to separate the thread, except for the
(quite common) occasion when somebody only makes a minor modification to the subject line (example:
"Should I wear a helmet" became "Should I NOT wear a helmet", but the content remained the same).

When somebody uses their newsreader's followup command, it keeps the References: header line the
same even if the user changes the Subject header line and the content.
--
Rick Onanian

Benjamin Lewis said:

Rick Onanian wrote: I don't see why it's a good reason to separate the thread. If you want to start
a new thread, start a new thread. A followup to an article should *appear* as a followup to an
article. That's what threading is about.

It should also have the same subject, or at least similar.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

except for the (quite common) occasion when somebody only makes a minor modification to the
subject line (example: "Should I wear a helmet" became "Should I NOT wear a helmet", but the
content remained the same).

How do you decide what a "minor modification" is?

My point wasn't the severity of the modification of the subject line; it was that the content
continued on the same topic.

However, to answer your question, that decision is (of course) subjective. If somebody
adds/deletes/changes one word in the subject line, then that's a minor modification, IMO. However,
if somebody changes it from "Specialized armadillo tire mounting" to "Why ride a fixed gear bike",
that would be, IMO, not minor.
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Rick Onanian wrote: I don't see why it's a good reason to separate the thread. If you want to
start a new thread, start a new thread. A followup to an article should *appear* as a followup to
an article. That's what threading is about.

It should also have the same subject, or at least similar.

Not if it's addressing a side point that the previous poster made. People only post followups to
articles if they want to address points made in those articles, so there is always some amount of
topic in common, even if it's not relevant to the "subject" line. The purpose of threading is to
show the relationship between these posts. The relationships exist even as the subject changes.

Changing the subject line is sufficient for allowing the reader to see the main topic in
different parts of a thread, without the need for actually breaking up the thread into completely
separate pieces.

--
Benjamin Lewis

You shall be rewarded for a dastardly deed.