![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Snowie on April 9, 2004, at 18:14:25
I have a question or suggestion about moving threads to different forums. If you feel a thread belongs in a different forum, rather than move only one post from the entire thread to a different forum, why not move the entire thread? In other words, if I were to see a post by itself that had been moved without the entire thread to explain its existence, I would have no idea where it came from, nor the posts that came before it, and consequently the thread would likely end right there. However, if you move the entire thread (which I requested be done at the beginning of one of my posts, although I wasn't sure if it might take a med turn), you have the whole conversation, not just one post from the entire thread, and the conversation can be continued if so desired. I definitely see a need to keep subject matters together, but if you can't move an entire thread or at least catch it early on, you might as well let the thread run its course in the forum in which it was first posted, whether or not it belonged there in the first place.
Snowie
Posted by shar on April 10, 2004, at 0:35:34
In reply to Move Threads Rather than Posts, posted by Snowie on April 9, 2004, at 18:14:25
That is a good point. Maybe a thread started about Effexor ends up talking about "Faith."
I wonder, maybe, if it should be in both places...which is, no doubt, a computing nightmare. For example, what if a thread that contains good information about Effexor withdrawal ends in a turn about 'just have faith.'
Should it go on Babble or Faith?
I'm not critical of your point-of-view, just wondering. Maybe the post belongs on both boards, but then there's a problem about how much room it will all take up.
>but if you can't move an entire thread or at least catch it early on, you might as well let the thread run its course in the forum in which it was first posted, whether or not it belonged there in the first place>
The above makes sense to me, 'tho others--maybe those who only visit 'Faith'--would miss out, while those who visit 'Babble' might benefit.
???
Shar
> I have a question or suggestion about moving threads to different forums. If you feel a thread belongs in a different forum, rather than move only one post from the entire thread to a different forum, why not move the entire thread? In other words, if I were to see a post by itself that had been moved without the entire thread to explain its existence, I would have no idea where it came from, nor the posts that came before it, and consequently the thread would likely end right there. However, if you move the entire thread (which I requested be done at the beginning of one of my posts, although I wasn't sure if it might take a med turn), you have the whole conversation, not just one post from the entire thread, and the conversation can be continued if so desired. I definitely see a need to keep subject matters together, but if you can't move an entire thread or at least catch it early on, you might as well let the thread run its course in the forum in which it was first posted, whether or not it belonged there in the first place.
>
> Snowie
Posted by Snowie on April 10, 2004, at 14:46:48
In reply to Re: Move Threads Rather than Posts » Snowie, posted by shar on April 10, 2004, at 0:35:34
Hi Shar,
Long time no chat with!
I don't have a problem with a thread being in one place or another, and I certainly don't have a problem with whatever forum Dr. Bob believes a thread should be located, but I do think he should move an entire thread, not just one post from a thread, so that the continuity of the thread isn't lost in the new forum. I'm not online for days at a time so when I get online and a thread I was participating in has been moved, but in actuality only one post from the thread has been moved, I can't respond to someone else's post from the original thread since officially it's now in another forum but technically it hasn't really moved. If the topic of the thread as a whole means that it is better suited to another forum, it makes better sense to move the entire thread (with an indicator that the thread is now in, say, Grief or Social) than to move only one post from the thread, which is basically signing a death warrant to the entire conversation, whether or not it was ready to die a natural death.
I hope that makes sense. As to your suggestion that a thread might belong on two forums, I understand what you're saying and it does make sense, but I don't see how it could work. Aside from the space problem, it could get confusing going from one forum to another and seeing an identical thread from another forum with similar and different posts on the subject in each forum. However, I prefer that idea to the way it is now.
Snowie
> That is a good point. Maybe a thread started about Effexor ends up talking about "Faith."
>
> I wonder, maybe, if it should be in both places...which is, no doubt, a computing nightmare. For example, what if a thread that contains good information about Effexor withdrawal ends in a turn about 'just have faith.'
>
> Should it go on Babble or Faith?
>
> I'm not critical of your point-of-view, just wondering. Maybe the post belongs on both boards, but then there's a problem about how much room it will all take up.
>
> >but if you can't move an entire thread or at least catch it early on, you might as well let the thread run its course in the forum in which it was first posted, whether or not it belonged there in the first place>
>
> The above makes sense to me, 'tho others--maybe those who only visit 'Faith'--would miss out, while those who visit 'Babble' might benefit.
>
> ???
> Shar
>
>
> > I have a question or suggestion about moving threads to different forums. If you feel a thread belongs in a different forum, rather than move only one post from the entire thread to a different forum, why not move the entire thread? In other words, if I were to see a post by itself that had been moved without the entire thread to explain its existence, I would have no idea where it came from, nor the posts that came before it, and consequently the thread would likely end right there. However, if you move the entire thread (which I requested be done at the beginning of one of my posts, although I wasn't sure if it might take a med turn), you have the whole conversation, not just one post from the entire thread, and the conversation can be continued if so desired. I definitely see a need to keep subject matters together, but if you can't move an entire thread or at least catch it early on, you might as well let the thread run its course in the forum in which it was first posted, whether or not it belonged there in the first place.
> >
> > Snowie
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2004, at 17:22:47
In reply to Re: Move Threads Rather than Posts » shar, posted by Snowie on April 10, 2004, at 14:46:48
> If you feel a thread belongs in a different forum, rather than move only one post from the entire thread to a different forum, why not move the entire thread?
Really just because that would take more time.
> if I were to see a post by itself that had been moved without the entire thread to explain its existence, I would have no idea where it came from
You could click on the link to the post that it's "in reply to"...
> if you can't move an entire thread or at least catch it early on, you might as well let the thread run its course in the forum in which it was first posted, whether or not it belonged there in the first place.
>
> SnowieI know it can be confusing, sorry, but IMO, better late than never.
--
> what if a thread that contains good information about Effexor withdrawal ends in a turn about 'just have faith.'
>
> Should it go on Babble or Faith?
>
> SharWhat I do in a situation like that is keep the posts about Effexor on Babble and move the one about faith to Faith.
--
> when ... only one post from the thread has been moved, I can't respond to someone else's post from the original thread
>
> SnowieYou can follow the link to the new board and post a reply there...
True, you can't use the "add name of previous poster" box to flag it for the original poster, but you can add their name to the subject line manually...
And you can't use the "include above post" button to quote their post, but it's possible to do that manually, too. Start a reply to their post on the old board and copy the quoted text, but don't submit a reply there. Instead, go to the redirected post, reply to it, and paste in the quoted text.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
Bob
Posted by spoc on April 13, 2004, at 23:17:13
In reply to Re: Move Threads Rather than Posts, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2004, at 17:22:47
As you state, people need to be aware of the "in reply to" link at the top of a post. Perhaps you could add something like this to the first post you move, or to the "post of combined posts" you sometimes use to deposit the redirect:
>>> 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. <<<<
(Fun, distantly related fact: Once when I couldn't find a certain post title within a redirected thread, it ended up having been moved within one of your "combined posts," which I didn't know were used. Anyway, Babble/Google wasn't hitting the post I sought, even by keywords from its body....)
==================
> > if I were to see a post by itself that had been moved without the entire thread to explain its existence, I would have no idea where it came from>> You could click on the link to the post that it's "in reply to"...
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2004, at 10:44:09
In reply to Re: Add an instruction? » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 13, 2004, at 23:17:13
> Although people may change post titles within a thread, the original post in it will not have "RE:" included in the title.
That's actually not always the case. The "Re:" isn't included automatically, but sometimes people type it in themselves.
> 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.
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
Posted by Snowie on April 14, 2004, at 17:11:11
In reply to Re: Add an instruction?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2004, at 10:44:09
Goodness, talking about this taking too much time, I totally agree! I think I'll just pass on redirects from now on.
Snowie
> > Although people may change post titles within a thread, the original post in it will not have "RE:" included in the title.
>
> That's actually not always the case. The "Re:" isn't included automatically, but sometimes people type it in themselves.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
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....
Posted by spoc on April 15, 2004, at 1:23:53
In reply to Re: Move Threads Rather than Posts, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2004, at 17:22:47
> > if I were to see a post by itself that had been moved without the entire thread to explain its existence, I would have no idea where it came from>
---
> You could click on the link to the post that it's "in reply to"... >
============In the post below (which involved only civility comments being redirected, but I have seen this link issue before), even the "In reply to" link couldn't get me to the original thread location. There was only an "Error, go back and try again" kind of message. (I went on to find the rest of it by using a site search.) I know usually "In reply to" works fine, as I just went on and on about earlier. And maybe the connection will get fixed on this one, but as of this writing it isn't working:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/336193.html
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2004, at 14:05:09
In reply to Re: Occasional flaw in *reply to* link? SHORT » Dr. Bob, posted by spoc on April 15, 2004, at 1:23:53
> In the post below ... even the "In reply to" link couldn't get me to the original thread location.
Sorry, that happens when I delete the original post rather than leaving it and redirecting follow-ups. I try to remember to do it differently then, but sometimes I forget.
Bob
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
Posted by spoc on April 18, 2004, at 22:20:36
In reply to Re: tracing the evolution of a thread, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2004, at 15:42:03
> > 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. >======================
Thanks! But hmmm, for some reason the wording in there isn't striking me as very clear...? Maybe it's just because my entire angle has only been that of the confusion of those at the landing site of a redirected thread, and how to literally spell things out. (Please note that again, I'm not asking how to do or trace anything myself, I get it).Because although I threw in a "bonus" suggestion, I do agree that it's been made clear enough already on the departure end. I think almost everything about navigating a thread at its original or only location is indeed likely to be figured out with any effort.
But I don't think the other half is anywhere near as intuitive. People are obviously responsible for becoming familiar with the FAQs themselves, but realistically, redirects are always going to be widely misunderstood on the receiving end. I think putting an unavoidable clue in people's faces may be the only way around that. (Me and my missions, huh?! However the posters who don't do Babble/Google searches may not even know or notice that they're missing anything; but in this case what's missing gets noticed! Or just dropped.)
Again, I think the risk of any confusion resulting from what you state above is far exceeded by the number of instances in which it would clarify and help. And I had only meant to suggest putting an instruction, or link wording such as "For Continuation of," in the very first post of the half of the thread that you transplant, not in all of them. So the individual posts on a thread that are *not* being redirected wouldn't even be involved.
But, thanks for what you did do! And I'll lay down my sword now. I tell ya, the next most likely thing to get ignored by posters besides the transplanted half of a redirect is me trying to get involved! :- |
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.