RE: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
The information below should be sent as a separate email to users when they
sign up.
Full marks for clarity.
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bob@proulx.com [mailto:bob@proulx.com]
> Sent: Monday, 4 November 2002 5:01 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
>
>
> 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? Please let me explain.
>
> You message can be reviewed in the archive:
>
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/ms
> g06497.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.
>
> Let's look at it from the threaded view.
>
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/th
> rd13.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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
Reply to: