More disciplin, you are right. Then, to follow what I applaused, I have a
new thread, but I will start a new subject.
Inge
On 17 August 2013 12:57, Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [rant]
>
> May I please make an appeal (once again) to Technet users to manage the
> way they use it?
>
> When a new subject is started, it should be the start of a new thread, by
> using the Write (or New Message etc.) button on your e-mail client.
>
> When replying or adding to any thread, please use Reply or Reply All, as
> appropriate. Do NOT start a new thread relative to the same subject.
>
> Above all, do not start a new thread by using either Reply button. This is
> a cardinal error because the ideal person to reply to your question may be
> ignoring the thread you have replied to, because it is not interesting to
> him.
>
> Some recent examples:
>
> On 13 August, the thread 'Refreshment' was started, with 11 correctly
> replied messages posted, nested 4 deep. On the same day, someone started a
> new thread, 'Re: [TN] Refreshment (NTC rant)' with 15 replies, of which the
> last 3 had the subject '[TN] Flux Type', probably largely unread as they
> were tacked on as a reply to an earlier thread. On 14 Aug, four new threads
> were started on the same subject, by people not using the Reply buttons. 2
> of these were isolated messages without replies. 2 of them were actually
> the start of new threads, one with a chain of 7 replies nested 5 deep. The
> other had 4 replies nested 2 deep. To add insult to injury, on the 15th Aug
> someone started a new thread 'Re: [TN] NTC again [TN] Refreshment (NTC rant
> continues)' which had only one reply. Then, on the same day, someone had
> the brilliant idea of starting yet another thread with the same title,
> instead of replying. This had 17 replies. nested 4 deep, of which 5 were
> entitled '[TN] Fiber optic borescope' which were totally irrelevant and
> wouldn't be seen by anyone bored (no pun intended) reading the
> 'Refreshment' rants.
>
> I'm sorry, guys and gals, this is totally chaotic. If, as I strongly
> recommend, you use a threading layout in your e-mail client, you will see a
> plurality of threads on a given subject. If there are threads you don't
> read, you may miss new threads embedded in the old ones. OTOH, if you don't
> use a threading layout, all the messages will be visible in chronological
> order, with all the subjects mixed up willy-nilly. In this case, there is
> no way you can ascribe a response to a given message and not to one with
> several messages in between. This makes it contextually impossible to
> follow a Q&A series and it would often become gobbledegook.
>
> [/rant]
>
> ______________________________**______________________________**__________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> **______________________________**__________
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
