Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.
 
PerlMonks  

RE: Section Order on Newest Nodes (this monk agrees)

by ybiC (Prior)
on Aug 31, 2000 at 08:46 UTC ( [id://30473]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Section Order on Newest Nodes

I'm glad to see you bring this up, athomason, as the same thought ocurred to me recently. FWIW, I'd like to see the layout be as you describe.

And I also agree with Turnstep's kvetch above about "anti-thread" reply names.   I respect that some of our fellow Monks have reasons for completely changing the node name of their replies, but it *does* make it tougher to follow context.   Kudra started a very logical reply naming scheme a couple months ago, that I think could be encouraged as "suggested standard" of sorts.   It goes something like this: RE(3)Original Node Name Here(Brief Reply Title Here).   A variation includes the replying Monk name with the RE (n), but I fail to see what value that adds, since the replying Monk's name is always associated somewhere close anyway.

My opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them.
    cheers,
    ybiC

Update: thanks to chromatic, who pointed me to The Threading Dilemma which already discusses in depth these points and much more.

  • Comment on RE: Section Order on Newest Nodes (this monk agrees)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://30473]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (9)
As of 2024-04-23 11:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found