OK, just for fun I'll reply by top-posting and I won't edit out the
messages before. I'm replying to Jim's post below, so my responses are
to Jim. He thinks my problem is about digests; it's really about
posting styles. But my core issue may be about the use of forums.
CLearly it's just me, no one else has complained, so I won't persue
this further except to reply here.
First, Jim, I don't reply by editing a message out of the daily
digest. I reply by logging into Yahoo! online and pulling out the
individual message, and then open a window there. I read the digest to
see if there are any messages I need to reply to each day. If I was a
more active member, I'd need to get individual messages.
I concur with you that editing a message from the daily digest for
reply would be painful. Going to the Yahoo! site avoids that, and it's
not much different from editing a reply via my own email client. In
fact, I'm writing THIS reply using a text editor and I'll simply cut
and paste it into Yahoo!'s edit window. ("Simple" was in fact not the
case, my cut-n-paste required removing all the linefeeds! ;( )
You say "6 of 130 recieve the digest", but you did not say how many of
the 130 recieve no emails at all as you suggested it was signifigant.
Am I 6 of 130, or 6 of maybe 30, in taking the digest?
You say "the solution to my problem is not to use the daily digest".
Nope, that's not the problem. The "problem" as I put it, was that
people top-post new messages on old, they get two and three deep. What
"digests" add to that problem is that I get to see all the messages at
once, so I see message A; followed by message B+A; followed by message
C+B+A. Either way, digest or individually, it's a bunch of messages
And that's if "everyone top posts"; most do but not all. So I have to
check to make sure it's not "B+A+C". But all that's apparently just my
"problem". Sorry to make a fuss.
As for my own question about "being too 20th century" about this, it
appears that the bulk of the thread is now about how some email USED
to be, namely proprietary email services like AOL and Compuserve.
Funny, I find such services to be restrictive and too "locked in";
although some services may have had a better user interface, as you
suggest for COmpupserve. And some people like the advantages of
proprietary email systems as places where people of like interests gather.
I certainly enjoy like-interests email groups. But I don't enjoy the
fact that each one has its own software support, methods, user
interface. And each one requires membership and registration. And some
of them are opportunities for spammers. Many of them are so special
purpose that I can only use them for one interest, some are just
site-specific. I appreciate from that perspective, comments about the
old days when "one click" seemed to do all the work to download and
sort messages from several groups under one provider.
My own needs, and again this is just my priorities, are that I need a
stable and reliable email service over a period of YEARS. I pay for
such a service, and it works with both Usenet and (what used to be)
standard Internet email services. But times change, and now in 2006
I'm obliged to join any number of these proprietary services that can
come and go with only notice given.
Jim suggests I set up my email client software and possibly my email
provider's features to segregate such email. That's apparently how
I'll have to manage all these disparate email groups, if I plan to
participate in any of their corresponding activities - such as MARCH
and it's Yahoo!-based mail service. My reluctance to do that seems to
be what I meant by "being 20th century".
The bottom line is that I'm odd man out on this subject, so I'll say
Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
> web site</a>
> domain mirror</a>
my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
"Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"
--- In email@example.com, Jim Scheef <jscheef@...> wrote:
> If you are using the daily digest, you have my gratitude for editing
out the superflous content and changing the subject line to match the
thread. Way to go. However, using the daily digest is your choice. I
just perused the membership list and was surprised by the number of
people receiving no emails. About six of 130 receive the digest.
Personally I stay away from the Yahoo Groups web site as much as
possible - going there only to do group business (I was a wizop on
CompuServe for ten years and my moderating habits die hard) but that's
the only reason I can see to go there. (Ok, the pictures can be fun.)
Thankfully most people reply at the top of each message so I see all
the earlier stuff only when I scroll down to check a point from an
earlier post. When everyone replies at the top, each message is a
synopsis of the thread even if someone changed the subject line.
> So, my solution to your 'problem' is to not use the daily digest and
to receive individual emails. Set up a filter in your email client to
move all incoming messages from the group to a special folder. That
way they do not clutter your inbox and are nicely organized for
sorting on date , subject or sender. As I read thru the messages I
delete most unless there is content to which I might want to refer
later, like a URL. Plus I can search these messages using Yahoo's
search. I find Yahoo email to be very convenient and with 2G of online
storage, I can keep all the messages I want. After a couple years of
saving lots of junk, I'm still using only 15% of the 2G.
> As to being too 20th century, I miss using Tapcis to download
messages from the 15-20 forums I used to follow on Compuserve. One key
stroke was all it took to connect to the service, collect all the
waiting messages and download the new message headers from all of my
favorite fora and log off again. That way you could review things off
line. Remember when connect time was money? At one time CIS cost about
$23/hour (~38Â¢ per minute!) at 2400bps and those were 1988 dollars.
What the service offered was a great online community interfaced thru
fabulous forum software with really good message threading. The
threading was so good that the only quoting needed was a few words for
emphasis. All of the various third-party tools, like Tapcis, used the
threading to manage and display messages. Even when they moved to a
web-based user interface they still had the best threading.
Unfortuntely the by the time AOL bought CIS, the CIS forum software
was way better than what AOL had and
> that was not a politically tenable position. So AOL management did
their best to kill off Compuserve to eliminate any possibility it
might threaten the core of AOL. Ah, the good old days...
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Herb Johnson <hjohnson@...>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2006 12:11:15 PM
> Subject: [midatlanticretro] OT: editing posts
> I'm getting confused by posts in reply
which contain too much prior
> posting. I have comments and my preferences below; I'd welcome any
> comments that offer other preferences or explanations.
> Case in point is the discussion about the August trip to Boston.
> Posted messages are two, three messages "deep" with both recent and
> earlier information. Messages in reply add to the depth. So in my
> daily digest of several messages, I see the same post two, three, four
> times in succession.
> Whether I'm using the digest, or using the Yahoo! Groups access Web
> page, I have this little window of 10, 20 lines of text. I have to
> roll around these messages to look for clues by date stamp or >> marks
> to sort out what is new, what I might reply to.
> My posting policy is to EDIT. Zero in on what I'm replying to and who
> said it, top my reply with that, and respond accordingly. At the very
> least, I remove replies to replies. Anyone who needs more context can
> refer to their message archives, or go to the Yahoo! Groups page
> archives. Time I take to edit, I figure, saves time for my friends in
> reading and sorting.
> I appreciate it's tough to use email for planning and extended
> discussion. For long term information, we have on Yahoo! a "database"
> section that could be used quickly, maybe that "calendar" section too.
> Of course our Web site can hold firmer plans if they are for the
> public, unless a "members only" section is added - many of the events
> in dicussion are members only. But it's good to have the "public" get
> a clue as to our activites on the Web site, it's our primary
> promotional tool.
> Some of that is policy stuff, it's up to the MARCH leadership. And all
> of this is just part of the growing process, I have no complaints
> overall. But as traffic and activity increases, it's harder to follow
> the discussion quickly when I have to wade through posts
> three-messages- deep. I think it's reasonable to consider if copying
> all those messages is necessary. But maybe that's just me, being too
> 20th century.
> Herb Johnson
> Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA
> <a href="http://retrotechnol ogy.com/herbs_ stuff/"> web site</a>
> <a href="http://retrotechnol ogy.net/herbs_ stuff/"> domain mirror</a>
> my email address: hjohnson AAT retrotechnology DOTT com
> if no reply, try in a few days: herbjohnson ATT comcast DOTT net
> "Herb's Stuff": old Mac, SGI, 8-inch floppy drives
> S-100 IMSAI Altair computers, docs, by "Dr. S-100"