Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
03.11.2002 18:59:51, bob@proulx.com (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> Michael Naumann <mnaumann@giga-stream.de> [2002-11-03 16:19:09 +0100]:
> > 03.11.2002 04:29:40, Rob Weir <rweir@softhome.net> wrote:
> > > [Please start a new thread for a new question, it makes it much easier
> > > for people to follow the list and makes it more likely that you'll get
> > > an answer.]
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with this.
> > Didn't I start a new thread.? Or was there already an equal named thread ?
> > I'm quiet new to this list, so maybe I didn't get it.
>
> This is not an uncommon confusion. Can I have your ear for a moment?
Sure you can.
> Please let me explain.
>
> You message can be reviewed in the archive:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/msg06497.html
>
> There you can see that you generated that message as a reply.
>
> In-reply-to: <200210310931.KAA02370@mach.vub.ac.be>
> References: <20021031024723.HJCG14348.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@there> <200210310931.KAA02370@mach.vub.ac.be>
>
> You replied to a message "Re: blank LCD monitor". Your message
> referenced both it and the previous message in that thread. In the
> archive the references are also links. If you click there you will go
> to the referenced message. But that is not all that being threaded
> does for you.
Oh, I see.
This was not done on purpose. I just picked a random message to have
the 'TO:' - Field filled. I was not aware of the confusion that can arise.
Shrugg..., how many times in the past did I do the same mistake ... ?
>
> Let's look at it from the threaded view.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/thrd13.html#06491
>
> You message is threaded by virtue of being a reply in the thread of
> discussion about "blank LCD monitor". This is in the list archive.
> But most mailers will show it the same way. Your message will be
> displayed as being part of the thread and the thread will be
> manipulated in one action. When I kill a thread in a mail reader it
> kills the entire thread, your message as well, all at one time.
So I probably unintentionally kicked myself in the ass.
>
> A little confusing in the archive, but not in mailers, is that the
> archive splits over months and so the next month contains Rob's reply
> and there is no archive threading across months. But mailers will
> display it since all of the messages are in a mailbox until you delete
> them. Normally in a mail reader the entire thread would be shown.
>
> Therefore you did not start a new thread. You replied to a previous
> one and only changed the subject. Changing the subject does not start
> a new thread. It just changes the subject. Threads are maintained by
> the "References:" headers.
Now I know. I'll take care of this in the future.
>
> If you want to start a new thread then you need to either 1) start a
> new message and send it to the list, which is the preferred method.
> Or 2) be sure to change the subject, delete the In-Reply-To: header,
> delete the References: header. The first option certainly seems
> easier then doing the second option.
I think, I'll stick to method 1)
>
> In general what you did by replying to an existing thread is called
> "thread stealing". That is considered a rudeness. It is like barging
> into conversation between other people in the middle, interrupting
> them, and then shooting off in a completely different direction.
> Right there in the middle of a discussion is this other person trying
> to start something up! How rude! You can see how that could be
> viewed that way.
Please everybody, take my apologies.
>
> Is it always rude to thread steal by changing the subject? No, and
> many times changing the subject is the right thing to do. To be
> specific just changing the subject is not the same as thread stealing.
> When thread drift occurs this is frequently appropriate. A discussion
> of one thing mutates into a discussion of something else but perhaps
> not of interest to the original thread. Therefore the author will
> change the subject to show this. This is not really thread stealing
> because the flow was directly connected to the original thread. It is
> just the drift of discussion.
>
> A real example from not too long ago was a thread titled "Make Debian
> better" which drifted into a discussion about broken home and end
> keys. csj correctly kept the same thread but politely changed the
> subject to "Home and end keys (was Re: Make Debian better)" so that we
> reading the discussion could see exactly how the discussion flowed. A
> good illustration of when changing the subject was quite appropriate.
>
> I myself in this message am doing this. Since this message itself has
> nothing to do with installing debian but only with a subtopic I have
> changed the subject line. But it flowed out of the original thread of
> discussion and I expect it to be threaded with it. But to give
> readers a topic I have titled the subject with what I thought was most
> appropriate. People not interested will skip it. Or perhaps people
> that are interested will read it when they would not have read the
> previous part of the thread of discussion. There is actually quite a
> bit of order to the seeming chaos of a usenet discussion.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Bob
Thanx, Bob, for the educated explanation.
-- Michael
Reply to: