If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

My habits are to read the top 10 or 20 threads (whatever fits on one
screen), so, I wouldn't see a thread that is old, by a few weeks.

On the other hand, there's a thread about the treehouse in the redwoods
which will likely take months, as each stage has multiple questions for
improvement.

Is it better to post each separate question, and then each thread goes to
the top? Or, better to re-use the old thread?

Would you even *see* posts in an old thread? (I wouldn't.)

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

"Danny D." wrote in message

My habits are to read the top 10 or 20 threads (whatever fits on one
screen), so, I wouldn't see a thread that is old, by a few weeks.

On the other hand, there's a thread about the treehouse in the redwoods
which will likely take months, as each stage has multiple questions for
improvement.

Is it better to post each separate question, and then each thread goes
to
the top? Or, better to re-use the old thread?

If it is pertinent to the thread, post a reply to it.

Would you even *see* posts in an old thread? (I wouldn't.)

I would if I had the display sort order set to "Sent". Which I do.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On 10/11/2014 2:33 PM, Danny D. wrote:
My habits are to read the top 10 or 20 threads (whatever fits on one
screen), so, I wouldn't see a thread that is old, by a few weeks.

On the other hand, there's a thread about the treehouse in the redwoods
which will likely take months, as each stage has multiple questions for
improvement.

Is it better to post each separate question, and then each thread goes to
the top? Or, better to re-use the old thread?

Would you even *see* posts in an old thread? (I wouldn't.)


New posts to old thread will show up as a part of it. News servers can
keep posts for years so your record will be a part of it for reference.
That is handy for anyone searching for a particular subject.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

Ed Pawlowski wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:17:00 -0400:

New posts to old thread will show up as a part of it. News servers can
keep posts for years so your record will be a part of it for reference.
That is handy for anyone searching for a particular subject.

But that's not the question.

I, for one, have all threads expire after a month (which is the default
for my news reader so I never changed it).

Even if they didn't expire, I have all my headers "threaded", such that
all the posts to any particular thread stay together.

Since I sort by reverse date, I only see about 1 week or, at most, 2
weeks of "thread initialization" dates. Anything older than about 2
weeks, even if someone updated it today, never shows up on my radar.

Of course, if I didn't thread the headers, and if I sorted by reverse
date, I'd see ALL the recent posts, but then I'd never have threads.

So, I was just asking what most of you do, since I know this treehouse
thread will take months to complete.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:33:21 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

My habits are to read the top 10 or 20 threads (whatever fits on one
screen), so, I wouldn't see a thread that is old, by a few weeks.

On the other hand, there's a thread about the treehouse in the redwoods
which will likely take months, as each stage has multiple questions for
improvement.

Is it better to post each separate question, and then each thread goes to
the top? Or, better to re-use the old thread?

Why would you want to start a new thread for each question on the same
topic? Even if a thread has dozens or even hundreds of posts they are
all in one thread and easy to follow. With several different new
threads how could one even follow all of the nested threads that with
your idea wouldn't be in the other threads?

Would you even *see* posts in an old thread? (I wouldn't.)

Yes. Why wouldn't you?

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

Gordon Shumway wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:41:32 -0500:

Would you even *see* posts in an old thread? (I wouldn't.)

Yes. Why wouldn't you?

For me, "old" threads (anything older than a day or two or five) don't
show up since they're on the bottom, and I don't scroll unless I'm
looking for something.

Plus, my newsreader expires articles after a month, automatically (by
default).

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On 10/11/2014 4:29 PM, Danny D. wrote:

So, I was just asking what most of you do, since I know this treehouse
thread will take months to complete.


We keep up on a regular basis

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On 10/11/2014 6:45 PM, Danny D. wrote:

For me, "old" threads (anything older than a day or two or five) don't
show up since they're on the bottom, and I don't scroll unless I'm
looking for something.

So turn the wheel on the mouse or do a search.


Plus, my newsreader expires articles after a month, automatically (by
default).


Change it

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:03:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/11/2014 6:45 PM, Danny D. wrote:

For me, "old" threads (anything older than a day or two or five) don't
show up since they're on the bottom, and I don't scroll unless I'm
looking for something.

So turn the wheel on the mouse or do a search.


Plus, my newsreader expires articles after a month, automatically (by
default).


Change it

+1

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

In ,
Ed Pawlowski belched:
On 10/11/2014 6:45 PM, Danny D. wrote:

For me, "old" threads (anything older than a day or two or five)
don't show up since they're on the bottom, and I don't scroll unless
I'm looking for something.

So turn the wheel on the mouse or do a search.


Plus, my newsreader expires articles after a month, automatically (by
default).


Change it

+2
just because he's to lazy to change his settings or use the scroll wheel,
we have to see him repeat himself over and over?
bean countersshrug

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/11/2014 6:45 PM, Danny D. wrote:

For me, "old" threads (anything older than a day or two or five) don't
show up since they're on the bottom, and I don't scroll unless I'm
looking for something.

So turn the wheel on the mouse or do a search.


Plus, my newsreader expires articles after a month, automatically (by
default).


Change it


I agree. Plus, my newsreader -- Outlook Express -- let's me mark topics or
threads that I want to "follow". They then show up in red as "watched"
threads. So, if I wanted to follow your thread about the tree project, I
would mark it as "watched". Then all I have to do is scroll down and if
there is a new post in an old "watched" thread, it shows up in bold red and
I see what new posts were added.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:33:21 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

My habits are to read the top 10 or 20 threads (whatever fits on one
screen), so, I wouldn't see a thread that is old, by a few weeks.

On the other hand, there's a thread about the treehouse in the redwoods
which will likely take months, as each stage has multiple questions for
improvement.

Is it better to post each separate question, and then each thread goes to
the top? Or, better to re-use the old thread?

Would you even *see* posts in an old thread? (I wouldn't.)

I certainly see your problem. I have the same one. For example, if
someone re-uses a subject line, like "AC problem" it sorts with the
earliert post with the same subject, and I probably don't see it. I
subscribed to one NG for years, forgetting that it posted a monthly FAQ,
with important details, because every month it had the same subject name
and sorted way up (in your case down) at the beginning of my posts. So
I never saw them after the first month.

(On most groups I have the expiration date set for 10 years, and may
increase it when the 10 years gets close.

(This group is so busy that I was having technical problem when I kept
all my posts so I had to lower it to 85 days, I think. (Well checking,
I see that I didn't do this for the new computer, and I haven't had any
problem, so I have about 38,000 headers going back to march of 2011,
although I haven't retrieved bodies for 13,000 of them and it's too late
to retrieve all but the more recent bodies now. )

In one group, I sort so they show up in the order they were retrieved,
no threading. This makes it easier to see every post, but I don't read
them by thread, and that's not as good. When I get mixed up, i
highlight the post in question and change the sort to "by thread" and
then I can see the context. Forte Agent is good at quickly resorting,
even old versions.

It sorts by author too, although I've rarely used that, and even by
length of post. The last one helped only once or twice when I was
searching for a post that was very short or very long.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On 10/11/2014 4:29 PM, Danny D. wrote:

But that's not the question.

I, for one, have all threads expire after a month (which is the default
for my news reader so I never changed it).

I see posts as they arrive. Unthreaded. I
think they go after ten days, but I can't
remember. If you post onto an old thread,
they show up here.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

ChairMan wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:39:55 -0500:

just because he's to lazy to change his settings or use the scroll
wheel,
we have to see him repeat himself over and over?
bean countersshrug

OK. OK. I got the point! :)
I'll keep it to one thread (but there are already three).

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

TomR wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:32:47 -0400:

Outlook Express -- let's me mark topics or threads that I want to
"follow". They then show up in red as "watched"

My newsreader does the same, but, I don't use that feature; however, I do
understand what you're saying.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

micky wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:44:48 -0400:

so I have about 38,000 headers going back to march of 2011,

Egads. I have about 100 threads in this newsgroup showing.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

micky wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:44:48 -0400:

In one group, I sort so they show up in the order they were retrieved,
no threading. This makes it easier to see every post, but I don't read
them by thread, and that's not as good.

I do the opposite, which is to sort by thread by default, but, if I know,
in a long thread, that I need to find a recent post, I can sort
unthreaded by date. But I rarely do that unless I'm looking for something
I know was posted.

I also automatically mark the entire thread read, the moment I exit,
which means that only new threads show up in bold, so, that in reality, I
only see new threads or a marker that an older thread was updated.

I see almost everyone does it differently than I do, which changes what I
would do for a thread that takes months. Thanks for the details.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

"Danny D." wrote in message

Ed Pawlowski wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:17:00 -0400:

New posts to old thread will show up as a part of it. News servers
can
keep posts for years so your record will be a part of it for
reference.
That is handy for anyone searching for a particular subject.

But that's not the question.

I, for one, have all threads expire after a month (which is the default
for my news reader so I never changed it).

Even if they didn't expire, I have all my headers "threaded", such that
all the posts to any particular thread stay together.

Since I sort by reverse date, I only see about 1 week or, at most, 2
weeks of "thread initialization" dates. Anything older than about 2
weeks, even if someone updated it today, never shows up on my radar.

Of course, if I didn't thread the headers, and if I sorted by reverse
date, I'd see ALL the recent posts, but then I' dnever have threads.

So, I was just asking what most of you do, since I know this treehouse
thread will take months to complete.

What newsreader are you using?

If a thread is one in which I am interested, I "watch" or flag it.
Sorting set to "Sent" in descending order then "Watch" gets me threads
sorted from newest to oldest with watched treads grouped on top.

I have my reader set to keep headers for 30 days. If someone replies to a
thread for which I no longer have headers, the reply is shown unthreaded,
sorted by the date it was sent.

If I'm not interested in a thread, I don't care where it is or what does
or doesn't show up :)


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

"Danny D." wrote in message

Gordon Shumway wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:41:32 -0500:

Would you even *see* posts in an old thread? (I wouldn't.)

Yes. Why wouldn't you?

For me, "old" threads (anything older than a day or two or five) don't
show up since they're on the bottom, and I don't scroll unless I'm
looking for something.

Does your newsreader have a "Next unread" button?

Plus, my newsreader expires articles after a month, automatically (by
default).

It doesn't expire them, just removes them from your computer.

They still exist on your server and if someone posts a reply to a thread
which no longer exists on your computer that reply will be downloaded to
your computer by your newsreader. If that doen't happen, you have your
reader settings screwed up.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

dadiOH wrote, on Sun, 12 Oct 2014 05:42:54 -0400:

What newsreader are you using?
Pan.

If a thread is one in which I am interested, I "watch" or flag it.
Pan can do that (although I don't use the feature).

Sorting set to "Sent" in descending order then "Watch" gets me threads
sorted from newest to oldest with watched treads grouped on top.
I'm pretty sure Pan can do that also.

I just sort by last in on top, but it's threaded, so, all responses go
into the threads.

I have my reader set to keep headers for 30 days.

Me too.

If someone replies to a thread for which I no longer have
headers, the reply is shown unthreaded,
sorted by the date it was sent.

Maybe that's why the very top of mine has single articles from
threads a million years ago. Most I ignore as they're really old.

If I'm not interested in a thread, I don't care where it is
or what does or doesn't show up

Me too.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

dadiOH wrote, on Sun, 12 Oct 2014 05:53:55 -0400:

Does your newsreader have a "Next unread" button?

I don't use any of the buttons as I have them all hidden (to save real
estate on the GUI) but it does have a "next unread" but I never use it.

What I do is "cherry pick" the threads to read, and then, when I exit a
newsgroup, it automagically marks everything read (even if I didn't read
it).

Then, when I come back in, it shows the new threads in bold, and the new
posts in old threads show up with a +n where the n is the number of new
posts to that thread since I last read it.

So, again, I cherry pick, but, usually only from the bolded (i.e., brand
new) posts or threads.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

"ChairMan" wrote in
:

In ,
Ed Pawlowski belched:
On 10/11/2014 6:45 PM, Danny D. wrote:

For me, "old" threads (anything older than a day or two or five)
don't show up since they're on the bottom, and I don't scroll unless
I'm looking for something.

So turn the wheel on the mouse or do a search.


Plus, my newsreader expires articles after a month, automatically
(by default).


Change it

+2
just because he's to lazy to change his settings or use the scroll
wheel, we have to see him repeat himself over and over?
bean countersshrug


+3

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:33:21 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote in

Or, better to re-use the old thread?

I prefer sticking with the same thread so I can have everything
related to that thread in the same place.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 05:21:11 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

micky wrote, on Sat, 11 Oct 2014 20:44:48 -0400:

In one group, I sort so they show up in the order they were retrieved,
no threading. This makes it easier to see every post, but I don't read
them by thread, and that's not as good.

I do this because this group often has threads that go on for months,
and new threads have forced one of those threads off the screeen.

Another thing I could do is de-expand all threads with no unread posts.
Then more threads fit on the screen and the 3 or 4 screens above it (in
your case, below it). And when a new post arrives in one of those
threads, it expands the thread and is very noticeable and easy to find.
But I don't like doing that for some reason, so instead, I display
the posts chronlogically, and when I don't understaned the context,
highlight the post in question and resort by thread.

I do the opposite, which is to sort by thread by default, but, if I know,
in a long thread, that I need to find a recent post, I can sort
unthreaded by date. But I rarely do that unless I'm looking for something
I know was posted.

I also automatically mark the entire thread read, the moment I exit,

Even if you want to go back and re-read something? Or think you might
want want to reply to something? Anyhow, I can mark every post in a
thread read, but with Agent, I don't think there is no way to mark a
thread as read** Which is fine because if a new post comes, I want to
notice it. **One can Ignore a thread, which is fine sometimes,
but unfortunately it just doesn't dl posts in that thread anymore, and
sometimes, with thread drift, I want to see the headers for a later
posts.


which means that only new threads show up in bold, so, that in reality, I
only see new threads or a marker that an older thread was updated.

I see almost everyone does it differently than I do, which changes what I
would do for a thread that takes months. Thanks for the details.

Yes, it's hard to post with others in mind, because many people read
differently from my way too.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

micky wrote, on Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:57:14 -0400:

I also automatically mark the entire thread read, the moment I exit,

Even if you want to go back and re-read something?

It *is* a pain if I'm specifically *looking* for a post within a thread.
In generaly, I go to google.groups and do a search to find stuff that
I know was in a specific thread.


with Agent, I don't think there is no way to mark a thread as read

With Pan, you can mark an entire thread as read, or an article, but, mine
is set up, by default, to mark *every* thread as read whenever I *exit*
the newsgroup.

So, my use model is to go in, and see what's new, and then leave, where
the vast majority of threads and articles go unread, but, when I leave,
they're *all* marked read, so that the next time I go in, only the new
stuff is bolded.

One can Ignore a thread, which is fine sometimes.
I use that a lot, to either ignore a thread or to ignore any posts by
someone specifically. (That keeps me out of arguments.)

but unfortunately it just doesn't dl posts in that thread anymore, and
sometimes, with thread drift, I want to see the headers for a later
posts.

I think Pan is similar in that once a thread is ignored, it's gone forever
(unless we wipe out the Pan directory and start anew).

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the samethread?
 

CRNG wrote, on Sun, 12 Oct 2014 07:59:59 -0500:

I prefer sticking with the same thread so I can have everything related
to that thread in the same place.

I'll update the original thread.
Thanks for the advice.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:55:35 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:


but unfortunately it just doesn't dl posts in that thread anymore, and
sometimes, with thread drift, I want to see the headers for a later
posts.

I think Pan is similar in that once a thread is ignored, it's gone forever
(unless we wipe out the Pan directory and start anew).

FWIW Agent keeps the headers that had been dl'd before Ignoring, and it
keeps the bodies for those headers too, if they were dl'd. But
everything that follows is ignored.

If a thread takes months, is it better to stay on the same thread?
 

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:33:21 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

My habits are to read the top 10 or 20 threads (whatever fits on one
screen), so, I wouldn't see a thread that is old, by a few weeks.

On the other hand, there's a thread about the treehouse in the redwoods
which will likely take months, as each stage has multiple questions for
improvement.

Is it better to post each separate question, and then each thread goes to
the top? Or, better to re-use the old thread?

Why would you want to start a new thread for each question on the same
topic? Even if a thread has dozens or even hundreds of posts they are
all in one thread and easy to follow. With several different new
threads how could one even follow all of the nested threads that with
your idea wouldn't be in the other threads?

Would you even *see* posts in an old thread? (I wouldn't.)

Yes. Why wouldn't you?

Instead of trying to read hundreds of posts, it would be much easier to
search for a paticular problem, and get the answer much faster. Subject
lines define the search first.

Greg