Ecolog:
All of Silvert's points are well-taken. (I must admit to have occasionally
emailed both the poster and Ecolog, but I agree with Silvert that deleting
the poster's email address is a courtesy that should be practiced) Perhaps
the key is to encourage originators to use subject lines, particularly
beginning with one word most relevant and basic to the subject matter? What
alternative might improve the custom? Can everyone be satisfied?
If the most relevant and basic term is the lead in the subject line, those
who would enjoy the convenience of merely clicking on the subject category
to assemble all of the related posts, there is an added benefit to the
instant retrieval of all messages with the same lead term, but most likely
with a different secondary category, regardless of the posting date, that
would serve as a reminder of similar threads in the past. This would place
the current thread foremost in the list, unlike performing a search for a
term that, while one might think it would be present in the subject line, it
would not be, e.g., in a thread with a subject line like "2010 ESA Annual
Meeting: Call for Symposium and OOS Proposals." One would not find that
thread through a "Climate" or "Global warming," for example, would one? In
this case, I believe that the subject did shift from "2010" to a discussion
focused on climate, specifically the theme of the meetings, to wit, "The
theme for the ESA Annual Meeting in 2010 is 'Global Warming: The legacy of
our past, the challenge for our future,'" the subject within that post that
prompted the post I made and added the most general category, "climate" to
the subject line, which I considered appropriate and relevant. I retained
the original post and its subject line for reference, even though the
"strand" of the ESA meeting post (not yet a "thread" at the time; it was an
initial, or original, post). I suppose I could have made it an entirely
"new" thread, and left the post and the key statement within it out or
pasted it in, out of context.
If no addition to the subject-line in this specific case was justified, I
would welcome any reasoning to the contrary.
Just to be clear, I am perfectly satisfied with Ecolog as it is, with each
post reflecting the best judgment of the author.
WT
PS: Since Silvert has truncated my original post below, those interested in
my initial post on this thread (as originator) will have to look for it (if
it has not been deleted) under its posting date. Not to sound grumbly, but I
think it's best to include the entire context/thread when responding to
posts; in fact, I find it most convenient for all posters to include the
entire thread so that readers do not have to hunt up the pieces. While this
may seem untidy, it does enable one to have the entire thread (and its
strands) on one email; in that case, all the other previous posts can be
deleted, greatly facilitating review. (Admittedly, there is a problem with
this, as responses are not always in perfect sequence.) If one is going to
delete portions of a post, the use of a telling notice such as [clip] can
give the reader a hint that a fragment is missing. But, as long as there is
clarity, I welcome the diversity of opinion and reasoned, relevant
contributions to all subjects. It is simply the best list on the Internet,
and the only one to which I subscribe.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Listserv posting and email subject line additions
Ecolog
Although I can understand the potential for people who only follow a
couple
of topics with threaded readers to miss some posts with modified subject
lines, I really don't see this as a big issue. Most threads dominate the
postings for their lifetime, but threads evolve too, and after a while the
original subject line is no longer fully descriptive. As for tracing back
to
the original posting, if the post includes just the relevant part that
should be sufficient.
And in keeping with the evolutionary nature of threads, I would add my own
mild complaint - replying not only to the list, but to the poster as well.
This means that the person who posts gets two copies of every reply, but
this can lead to confusion for everyone, since it unsyncs the postings.
Suppose that you reply to this post with messages to both me and the list.
I
get the personal reply first, and respond to both you and the list. Unlss
David is very diligent about the order that items go out, list members may
receive a response before they see the message to which the response is
sent. This happens sometimes on this list, but it is quite common on
unmoderated lists where longer messages may take longer to get circulated.
Since presumably the people who post to the list also read the list, there
is no need to include them in the reply, just send it to the list please.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:32 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Listserv posting and email subject line additions
Ecolog
Ecolog:
I received the following message from a listserv subscriber who wishes to
remain anonymous:
"I know people have asked before and you have dismissed it, but I find
your changing of seemingly every subject line annoying and
presumptuous. In this case, what was gained by changing the subject
line? It made referencing back the original email more difficult."
. . . and in later message: "PS This is a personal message and I would
appreciate it not being
forwarded to the whole list.
Thanks,"
[Name withheld at sender's request]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 07/31/09
05:58:00
