in reply to Re: Collapsing Re:'s in Titles.
in thread Collapsing Re:'s in Titles.

Several people, including me, very much hate node titles that don't give any hint at how deep they are in a thread. A non-"Re" node should be a root note and is usually a question or a proprosal. A "Re:" node should be a reply and is usually an answer. A "Re^2:" is usually quite different than either of the preceeding types of nodes. A "Re^15:" is quite deep in a thread and, at that point, a "Re:" showing up for the same thread means it isn't just more of the same back-and-forth that I've been ignoring.

So part of the point of this patch is to encourage people to stop removing depth indicators that several people find quite useful. The hope is that the quite compact "Re^15:" is not so bothersome as to motivate people to mess with it.

I'd rather the depth in "Re^$depth:" be calculated based on the real depth of the node in a thread, but that requires other changes.

Thanks, demerphq for implementing this.

- tye        

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Collapsing Re:'s in Titles.
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jun 03, 2004 at 07:38 UTC

    I'd rather the depth in "Re^$depth:" be calculated based on the real depth of the node in a thread, but that requires other changes.

    Its on my todo list on the test site to do it this way. IMO there are some minor issues to resolve as I don't think the logic needed quite meshes with Everythings normal update logic.

    Thanks, demerphq for implementing this.

    No problem. Now that addnewform and addnewnoteform are somewhat refactored it should be easier to introduce better ways to do this.


    ---
    demerphq

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
      -- Gandhi
[reply]
[d/l]
Re: Collapsing Re:'s in Titles.
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jun 03, 2004 at 13:30 UTC
    The depth of a node in a thread is a property of the node, not of its title. Just like with usenet and email, I think that root nodes should be non-Re titled, and so should articles that change the title. The rest should get "Re:", and nothing more.

    Abigail (this is my 4000th posting - more worthy as a profound meditation, but I've no interesting subjects to write about at the moment. Perhaps when I reach posting 5000).

[reply]
      >   Perhaps when I reach posting 5000
      ... so let's see next month!

      pelagic
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion