The information below should be sent as a separate email to users when they sign up.
Full marks for clarity. Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bob@;proulx.com] > Sent: Monday, 4 November 2002 5:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network) > > > Michael Naumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-03 16:19:09 +0100]: > > 03.11.2002 04:29:40, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Please start a new thread for a new question, it makes it much > > > easier for people to follow the list and makes it more > likely that > > > you'll get an answer.] > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with this. Didn't I > > start a new thread.? Or was there already an equal named > thread ? I'm > > quiet new to this list, so maybe I didn't get it. > > This is not an uncommon confusion. Can I have your ear for a > moment? Please let me explain. > > You message can be reviewed in the archive: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/ms > g06497.html > > There you can see that you generated that message as a reply. > > In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: > <20021031024723.HJCG14348.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@there> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You replied to a message "Re: blank LCD monitor". Your > message referenced both it and the previous message in that > thread. In the archive the references are also links. If > you click there you will go to the referenced message. But > that is not all that being threaded does for you. > > Let's look at it from the threaded view. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/th > rd13.html#06491 > > You message is threaded by virtue of being a reply in the > thread of discussion about "blank LCD monitor". This is in > the list archive. But most mailers will show it the same way. > Your message will be displayed as being part of the thread > and the thread will be manipulated in one action. When I > kill a thread in a mail reader it kills the entire thread, > your message as well, all at one time. > > A little confusing in the archive, but not in mailers, is > that the archive splits over months and so the next month > contains Rob's reply and there is no archive threading across > months. But mailers will display it since all of the > messages are in a mailbox until you delete them. Normally in > a mail reader the entire thread would be shown. > > Therefore you did not start a new thread. You replied to a > previous one and only changed the subject. Changing the > subject does not start a new thread. It just changes the > subject. Threads are maintained by the "References:" headers. > > If you want to start a new thread then you need to either 1) > start a new message and send it to the list, which is the > preferred method. Or 2) be sure to change the subject, delete > the In-Reply-To: header, delete the References: header. The > first option certainly seems easier then doing the second option. > > In general what you did by replying to an existing thread is > called "thread stealing". That is considered a rudeness. It > is like barging into conversation between other people in the > middle, interrupting them, and then shooting off in a > completely different direction. Right there in the middle of > a discussion is this other person trying to start something > up! How rude! You can see how that could be viewed that way. > > Is it always rude to thread steal by changing the subject? > No, and many times changing the subject is the right thing to > do. To be specific just changing the subject is not the same > as thread stealing. When thread drift occurs this is > frequently appropriate. A discussion of one thing mutates > into a discussion of something else but perhaps not of > interest to the original thread. Therefore the author will > change the subject to show this. This is not really thread > stealing because the flow was directly connected to the > original thread. It is just the drift of discussion. > > A real example from not too long ago was a thread titled > "Make Debian better" which drifted into a discussion about > broken home and end keys. csj correctly kept the same thread > but politely changed the subject to "Home and end keys (was > Re: Make Debian better)" so that we reading the discussion > could see exactly how the discussion flowed. A good > illustration of when changing the subject was quite appropriate. > > I myself in this message am doing this. Since this message > itself has nothing to do with installing debian but only with > a subtopic I have changed the subject line. But it flowed > out of the original thread of discussion and I expect it to > be threaded with it. But to give readers a topic I have > titled the subject with what I thought was most appropriate. > People not interested will skip it. Or perhaps people that > are interested will read it when they would not have read the > previous part of the thread of discussion. There is actually > quite a bit of order to the seeming chaos of a usenet discussion. > > Hope this helps. > > Bob > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
