| 1 |
Square Bottle wrote: |
| 2 |
> [Responding to two different people in one posting to keep the number |
| 3 |
> of emails down.] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Jan 20, 2008 8:56 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> a few things: |
| 7 |
>> - fix your top posting (in other words, stop doing it) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It was an entirely new topic actually. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> - dont hijack existing threads |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Again, it was an entirely new topic. You surely noticed that it had a |
| 14 |
> brand new subject and everything. I accidentally left a different |
| 15 |
> quote at the bottom because I used a different email to quickly set it |
| 16 |
> up to send to the list, but this should have been the very last thing |
| 17 |
> for you to see anyway. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Mr. Bottle, let me attempt to explain the reason for Mike's reaction, |
| 20 |
because I just realized the problem as Mike sees it. Email clients that |
| 21 |
support threading, such as Thunderbird, Kmail, etc, show the threaded |
| 22 |
view by looking at the email headers, not the email subject. When you |
| 23 |
decided to start a new topic, you did so by opening an existing email |
| 24 |
from a fairly long thread, deleting the contents and subject of the |
| 25 |
email and starting (what you thought) was a fresh topic. Unfortunately, |
| 26 |
this REALLY screws up conversation threading in popular email clients. |
| 27 |
I'm using Thunderbird right now, and your initial email for this new |
| 28 |
subject displays as about the 30th email reply to a thread with subject |
| 29 |
"drobbins, leadership, etc.". It took be a good ten minutes to even |
| 30 |
find your email in thunderbird, whereas in Gmail, it displayed as a |
| 31 |
totally new thread at the top of my list. I guess Gmail doesn't honor |
| 32 |
email headers properly. I didn't realize this until now either, and I'm |
| 33 |
sure I've annoyed the hell out of some people in the past also. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
>> no attempt was made to summarize anything at all. the article merely linked |
| 37 |
>> to all existing posts made by Gentoo developers. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> They chose to use some opinion posts from developers to summarize the |
| 40 |
> debate, but only ended up giving one side of the story. ... |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
There's really a few problems with your argument. |
| 43 |
1. The "article" in question was not an article at all. It was simply a |
| 44 |
collection of popular blog posts from the p.g.o. feed. |
| 45 |
2. This discussion really belongs in an email to gmn-feedback, not on |
| 46 |
the gentoo-nfp list. Although, you are talking about the foundation, |
| 47 |
it's really a complaint about how you feel the GMN presented the |
| 48 |
information. So, it's best sent to gmn-feedback. |
| 49 |
3. If you feel so strongly, you should really write a proper article |
| 50 |
yourself and submit it to gmn-feedback for inclusion in the next |
| 51 |
newsletter. The GMN really needs more people to participate and submit |
| 52 |
articles. I'm sure a properly written article on this topic would be |
| 53 |
well accepted. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
@Mike |
| 56 |
Thanks for the link to the wiki article about top posting. I've been |
| 57 |
doing this forever, and I never realized what the fuss was about. The |
| 58 |
example signature in the article really drives the point home. It's |
| 59 |
confusing as hell when someone top posts. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
----------------- |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
John Alberts |
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives