http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=283096


in reply to Re^4: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
in thread Automatic Re-ing with numbers

Which they shouldn't (when they're not replying to a specific point in a long post, anyway), since we have a perfect archive here. Even if you read a reply to a post 4 year old post written 3 years before you ever first visited the site, the context is still available.

I didn't say it's impossible - but it requires at least one other fetch, more if you want to go up further in the thread. And this is slow. It requires more actions, there's a lot of non-post in a fetch, and it requires you to read the entire post to understand the followup. It just makes it harder to follow a thread, not impossible.

Abigail

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Automatic Re-ing with numbers
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Aug 12, 2003 at 08:11 UTC
    I was not arguing about whether it is hard to follow a thread (it is), but you seemed to imply that people should quote more extensively. But that's just a bad workaround that would pollute the message base - my position is that we need a better interface, not for people to quote more.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]
      I was arguing about whether it is hard to follow a thread (it is), but you seemed to imply that people should quote more extensively. But that's just a bad workaround that would pollute the message base - my position is that we need a better interface, not for people to quote more.
      I argue that not quoting is one of the factors that makes it harder to follow threads. I don't want to claim that if people quote more, than the problem is solved. It isn't, but it's a step in the right direction. Of course, the UI of Perlmonks doesn't make it easy to quote (unlike most Usenet readers).

      Abigail

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion