in reply to The Threading Dilemma

Just CTFT (Change the, er, fine title), Not to be to blunt, but I try to do this with all my posts, I pick a title for it that is relavent to what I'm saying inside the post.

I like some of the other ideas to help out, and I realize also that alot of people don't change the title themselves, from laziness or forgetfullness (a few of my posts slip out with me forgetting to change the title).

As a final note, one can remove the RE: clutter by simply not providing a default title for a post, and also not allowing a blank title. This, combined with id number referencing, and some other other mentioned ideas, should be a simple and effective solution for 95% of the problem, no?

Ciao,
Gryn

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: CTFT (RE: The Threading Dilemma)
by tye (Sage) on Jul 23, 2000 at 08:51 UTC

    I like CTFT, at least when you are moving the discussion in a new direction. But the problem with it is that it usually means (based on the little experience I've had with perlmonks) that the title doesn't reflect what it was in response to. But this is only a problem in places that don't show an "In reply to" item, such as in "Newest node" (where I most dislike CTFT).

    So I support CTFT (in many cases) but heavier use of it would make me push for addition of "in reply to" columns in several places.

[reply]
      Well, I agree tye! I haven't been able to check the site as often as I want to, so I haven't been paying attention to the Newest Nodes section. But yeah, if you CTFT then you will probably throw people off concering that sectionl. We should definately consider fixing this problem.

      My first thought on the matter of fixing Newest Nodes though, was that we wouldn't have room to put both the title of the post, and the refering post's title on the same line. However, it would be just as useful to mention the ultimate parent's node, rather than the immediate parent's. If this was the case, then we could sort replies based on that field (the ultimate parent), and then simply note that information once for each offending reply: 

      Replies:
[Deep Linkage]:
  [Yeah but I think...]
  [Happy birthday!]
[Arrays in Hashes]:
  [Use it like this:]
  [No no no...]

      [download]

      Which would be much more sensible (you could even space the replies, and build a tree if you wanted)

      Ciao,
      Gryn

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion