And I also agree with Turnstep's kvetch above about "anti-thread" reply names. I respect that some of our fellow Monks have reasons for completely changing the node name of their replies, but it *does* make it tougher to follow context. Kudra started a very logical reply naming scheme a couple months ago, that I think could be encouraged as "suggested standard" of sorts. It goes something like this: RE(3)Original Node Name Here(Brief Reply Title Here). A variation includes the replying Monk name with the RE (n), but I fail to see what value that adds, since the replying Monk's name is always associated somewhere close anyway.
My opinions, worth exactly what you paid for them.
cheers,
ybiC
Update: thanks to chromatic, who pointed me to The Threading Dilemma which already discusses in depth these points and much more.
In reply to RE: Section Order on Newest Nodes (this monk agrees)
by ybiC
in thread Section Order on Newest Nodes
by athomason
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |