authfriend wrote:

>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>authfriend wrote:
>>    
>>
><snip>
>  
>
>>>I'm not a programmer, but I've been participating
>>>in electronic forums, via BBSs, email, newsgroups,
>>>and on the Web for over 20 years, and I've never
>>>heard the term "thread hijacking" except from
>>>you.  I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Probably because it may not be possible much of anywhere else
>>except Yahoo Groups.
>>    
>>
>
>But Vaj says it's a common phrase from "the earlier
>days on the net," and Yahoo Groups is quite recent.
>
>  It may not be apparent unless you are using an email 
>  
>
>>client.  What it means is trying to start a new thread by taking an 
>>existing message and just changing the subject line.
>>    
>>
>
>An entirely new thead, or a tangent of the original
>one, where the discussion has changed course and the
>heading no longer applies?
>
>Folks used to do this on Usenet all the time, putting
>the original thread title in parens preceded by "Was:"
>and nobody ever objected.  It still happens now on
>Google Groups' Usenet newsgroups, and Google keeps
>all the subthreads together with the original (or
>Usenet does, and Google doesn't change that).
>
>When it's a *tangent* to the original, sometimes it's
>useful to be able to go back and see where it branched
>off.
>
>I don't understand why anybody would start a brand-new
>thread by replying to an old one, when it's so easy to
>start a new one, and you don't have to delete the text
>of the post you're replying to, since you're not 
>replying to anything.
>  
>
My point exactly.

>  
>
>>I've mentioned this before here particularly last year and got 
>>mocked for bringing it up (anywhere else you may get mocked for 
>>doing it).
>>    
>>
>
>Starting a brand-new thread by replying to a post in
>an old thread and deleting the text of the post, perhaps.
>I've never seen anyone but you get exercised when a 
>thread is retitled when it takes off in a new direction.
>Often the old part continues in parallel.  And there can
>be quite a few branches off the old thread, all related
>on some level, but dealing with different aspects of the
>original topic.
>
>  
>
>>But the person whom 
>>I was responding to was asking why the subject changed and that 
>>would be considered a thread hijacking.
>>    
>>
>
>No, not when it's a branch off the old thread.  That
>just doesn't make any sense.  You *should* leave in
>the old title in parens, though.
>
>  I think that doing that should actually 
>  
>
>>create a new thread in the database but apparently the Yahoo 
>>database system can't handle that.
>>    
>>
>
>Neither can Google's (or Usenet's, whichever one it
>is that handles the threads--I've never been sure).
>And personally, I don't think it should.  Google 
>calls a thread with subthreads a "tree," because
>the subthreads branch off.
>
>  Yahoo apparently uses their message numbers 
>  
>
>>to keep the thread order.  I'm sure there were many CF's in the 
>>    
>>
>Yahoo 
>  
>
>>boardroom over this.  :)
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to