Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2004, at 15:42:03
In reply to Re: Sometimes change requires a solid case, so.... » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 14, 2004, at 17:51:16
> Maybe above you're referring to cases where someone *initiates* a thread using "RE:." But this would be a minority
I was, and I agree, it is...
> I believe many people don't *think* to click on the link that appears after "In reply to."
>
> 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.That's a good idea, how about:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trace
> 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."
Maybe I'll just hope people read the FAQ? "Continuation" could be confusing. I think it's clear at the original location where to post to. And sometimes I'm not redirecting all follow-ups, just those on certain topics.
> 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:”
I think I see what you mean, but sometimes if there have already been a number of replies, I'm afraid people might think they should re-reply at the new board...
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:334591
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/337216.html