Posted by spoc on April 14, 2004, at 17:51:16
In reply to Re: Add an instruction?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2004, at 10:44:09
....drat, wish I could shorten this but that's part of the nature of my beast! [Note people, I don't always get so "passionate," it is often safe to open a Spoc post! ;- ) ] Anyway, I do think the change(s) suggested here would be in the best interests of the board, including you Dr. Bob. I do already understand how to navigate, so am trying to help others, and to help you look at it from an angle you may be missing.
---
> > (My suggested clarification blurb) “Although people may change post titles within a thread, the original post in it will not have ‘RE:’ included in the title. To ensure from anywhere that you are at the beginning of a thread, check the link that appears after "In reply to," and click it if ‘RE:’ still precedes the title.”
---
> That's actually not always the case. The "Re:" isn't included automatically, but sometimes people type it in themselves..>To get to the very beginning: >
> 1. Click on the "Thread" link at the very top of the post (or scroll down to the Thread section yourself) and click on the first post. >
> 2. That will usually be the very beginning. But it may have been redirected from another board. If it's in reply to another post, click on that post to trace it back. >
> 3. Repeat as necessary.>> Bob
====================
With both of our wording we intend to say basically the same thing, but we are identifying different aspects as the issue here. I do know well how to get to the beginning, and wasn't posing a question. It's numerous others who need to be seeing a (standing) clarification/instructional note, but with the emphasis on a different part you may not be thinking of in the above. Namely, clarifying the *process* for actualizing your last sentence in step #2.If one clicks on "Thread" from the *new* location, as you state, it only takes them to the "listing" below that post of whatever grew there *since* the redirect. I already know its there, and believe most others do too. Problem starts at new location, where I believe many people don't *think* to click on the link that appears after "In reply to." I think somehow subconsciously they’re not even thinking of it AS a link, just a reiteration of the topic. Selective blindness. So of course they don’t realize it leads to something at another location, beyond what they erroneously think is the top of the thread and that they’ve reached it. Those are the people I am playing to in my wording above. Their confusion is not addressed by clicking “Thread” from the new location.
I'll continue, but first, to respond to your first sentence above literally: ??! When someone replies any time after a thread is started, obviously "RE:" *is* automatically included in the form (although it can be taken out and sometimes is, creating another kind of possible confusion). I had meant one should click next to "In reply to" ONLY if they got to the apparent *top* of the thread and still saw "RE:," which is the nature of the part of the thread at its *new* location. Maybe above you're referring to cases where someone *initiates* a thread using "RE:." But this would be a minority and a different subject. You like to keep it brief, so in my wording suggestion I didn't include caveats about "RE:." But if you think it's an issue I'm sure that could be worked in concisely as well. But in either instance, it's not related to whether a means of clarification/instruction would be useful to add to the first post of the redirected thread in its new location.
Anyway, concerning redirects, the only place I see the “Thread” link functioning as you intend it to is at its *original* location. There, “Thread” will get you to all of it located on *that* board, listed below the post being viewed. But the people at that end are not the ones wondering where it all started. (Oddly, I see that they may still wonder where it all went -- e.g. a recent Lexapro thread -- but there I agree that you are already being clear enough in what you now do: provide the new link. And that they must not be opening your announcement post or something. But I have a remedy for that too.) More often, any contribution to the death of a thread that is made by those posting to its original location may come from subconsciously assuming (and having seen) that it may die in the new locale. Or that it won't be found or understood by others. So they don’t follow your link, or do so only to be met with confirmation that indeed nothing is happening there. So they drop it.
So it’s the people “over there” where it landed who need to be enlightened on accessing the whole picture in context. I do believe the real need is to raise awareness of how to carry out the part you refer to in step #2 above: "...If it's in reply to another post, click on that post to trace it back." That's actually vague and could bring to mind everything *except* that what's next to “In reply to” within the first post at the redirect is actually a link one can and should use.
If you see my point and agree, but still don't want to use up a few lines for a clarification blurb at the top of your initial post in a newly planted redirect, you could instead just add the instructions to the FAQs or Options. THEN, in your first deposited post, add a hyperlink to "Instructions on finding the beginning of this thread, and how to reply *here* to others who posted to its former location." OR, if possible, maybe you could just make the “In reply to” link *itself* in the FIRST post at the redirect read: “CLICK HERE FOR CONTINUATION OF: ‘(e.g.) Why are weekends so hard?’ ” Maybe it would also help if at the original location you add to your redirect announcement, as in "Redirected: Post to new location only."
I chose the redirected thread below as an example. (Although I realize you already know how this works, one MUST provide examples, in case anyone else has hung in here this far!) Examples:
Thread at its new location, where clicking “Thread” as you mention only leads to an area I think people are already aware of. Instead, clicking the link next to “In reply to” from the *top* post here -- the step I maintain that many are not aware of -- indeed takes one to the rest of the thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040324/msgs/330191.html*vs,* thread at original location, where indeed clicking Thread gets one to the beginning, but it isn't necessary or at least critical there:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040329/msgs/330145.htmlI also think these changes/clarifications would help when old or even ancient threads containing a redirect at some point get bumped into the present, by someone stumbling into the middle of one through an archive search and bumping/adding to it. The others who proceed to add to the bumped thread and who don't understand the root-tracing process won't realize that they could also have accessed the entire historical development of it. They too would be helped once they finally run into ground zero, your post containing the process clarification I suggest.
Digression: Please skip this part right here if I must choose my “battles” for your time wisely; this isn’t a big one to me. But I think it would also be better if the original misplaced thread that *does* remain in its original location was denoted BY the post that started it, rather than one of the replies to it beginning with “RE:,” as seen for the above thread on this board archive:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20040329/
But skip that, the real point is, the potential for helpfulness through addressing the main problems detailed above greatly exceeds its potential to confuse OR be unnecessary. Some members obviously really don't know where something came from or how to find out, and I'm betting there are actually a lot of them. Some only recently turned to the message board concept when they got to a point in life where they realized they could use all the help and info they could get, as I did. I'm an intelligent person but I never came near a message board until less than a year ago, so this does not all go without saying as it might with younger people who may indeed have “grown up with” boards (and computers and the Internet for that matter). But hey, they may not even need a board like PB as much as we do yet!
This really is an issue, I have indeed noticed that many topics die after redirect. Confusion and subconscious dismissal; appearance that few people are at the party in its new location; whatever the causes, there should be a compromise. In my gut I do agree that it is well worth the time and effort to move an entire thread or have someone else do it (and possibly watch for the debut of obvious misplacements). And to just leave a *copy* of the original thread-starting post in its original location, with your words "Redirected: post to new location only (?)" and the new link. You don't want to do it that way, but somethimg should be done. People do miss out on continued fun and information as it stands now, and you miss out as well because you do want to facilitate discussions; and some topics had been hot before redirect. I agree this doesn't have to happen, but it most definitely does, may as well face it....
poster:spoc
thread:334591
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/336426.html