On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 16:21 -0500, James Crants wrote: > Wayne, > > I'm with Jonathan here. I use gmail, and I find it much easier to identify > a new post as relevant to previous ones if it is included in the same > thread. > > I get at least 50 emails a day, and I'm simply not going to take the time to > do a search for emails whose subject lines share terms with the ones I'm > interested in. Instead, I visually scan for threads that have already > caught my interest by looking for threads with multiple posts, and I scan > for new threads that might be interesting by looking at the portion of the > subject line that's visible in my inbox. If a thread doesn't seem > interesting at this stage, out it goes, with only slight risk I'll miss > anything I care about.
We wouldn't have to rely on subject lines for threading if people's mailers consistently set the In-Reply-To as they are supposed to. That your mailer threads by subject as well as by In-Reply-To is a convenience tool. I leave this feature turned off on my mailer (Evolution) as my colleagues appear to be very unimaginative when it comes to thinking up subject lines and I often have messages buried in my mailboxes because they happen to have the same subject line. Of the mailing list I subscribe to, this is the worst one for threading in Evolution, but not because the subject lines change all the time, but because many mailers used by posters don't use the relevant headers... G > > Which brings up another problem with changing the subject line when the > subject hasn't really changed: if your new subject text is all I can see in > my inbox, I may not know it's connected to the old thread. Given your > fondness for wordplay, there's a fair chance that the purpose of your > message won't be obvious based on what I see in my inbox, and I'll delete it > without realizing it's related to a thread I'm interested in. > > Finally, I've noticed that the change in subject heading sometimes leads to > one conversation forking into two parallel ones, with the same points being > made under both subject lines. Given how long it can take to craft a > response that you know hundreds of intelligent people might be reading, the > time wasted when a conversation forks and people unwittingly replicate each > other's points may be substantial. > > Jim Crants > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > -- %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% Dr. Gavin Simpson [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522 ECRC, UCL Geography, [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565 Pearson Building, [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk Gower Street, London [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/ UK. WC1E 6BT. [w] http://www.freshwaters.org.uk %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%
