NavList:

   

Reply

George, you wrote:
"As one who receives by email, I find it difficult, when looking at old
messages, where a thread has been spawned from a preceding one, to follow
the discussion back to its origins. That's the reason, when introducing a
new threadname, why I usually chuck in a "was: xxxx" , to allow a link
backwards along the chain, for others inquiring later, as it's not otherwise
obvious. Then, for further iterations, I'll usually drop that "was....".
Does that make sense? If it doesn't help, I won't do it."

If it helps you, that's sufficient. For the most part, I think that this is no 
longer necessary, but I would say that the best way to find out is to ask 
other NavList members. So, everybody, could we get a few votes? Do any of you 
find the "was: xxxx" tags when threads are branched off specifically useful, 
or even just comforting? Also, do any of you find them annoying or 
distracting? We don't need a big vote here --just a little input from the 
community.

By the way, George, almost all messages have this thread-branching info in 
their headers, so it's really a software issue. If our email software reads 
these headers properly, it can construct a tree based on threads or based on 
subjects (or date, author, etc.).

-FER




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply