Nan- Yes--I do this also and I do believe in the value of reviewing an entire old thread when a new post is added for the very reason that, obviously, if someone is posting a reply, the thread is still viable and of interest. This is the reason I prefer viewing the boards as admin in FLAT view -- it works best for us IMperfect human admins. <g> Joan ----------- So, I keep up with the current posts; and my preference, which I cannot *always* accomplish, is to clean the whole thread when a new post brings an old thread to the top. **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

>Judy Wrote: >As to subject lines, it won't mess up connections. Hi Judy, Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. I didn't have trouble figuring out which repsonse went with which post...I was just using that as an example. I only change subject boxes with "Roth" - "Roth Family" - "Searching for father/mother/sister/brother"...or "HELP"!!!". Something like "Roths in Pennsylvania" I leave unchanged. That, at least, gives a location. Regards, Paul

Thanks Joan Paul

I would like to know if you all are actually seeing objections lately. I posted an objection on one of my boards just to test the system and have yet to see it hit. Jim

Cheryl- For most people filing an abuse report because they have run into a problem doing a search and that problem is due to a badly listed surname entry (for example) -- it wouldn't matter where they were dumped after hitting submit. For Susie Board-do-gooder who is spending 36 hours every day scouring old posts on boards for the sole purpose of filing every abuse report possible it WOULD make a difference. My point--which I may have explained poorly before, is that the board system is not designed for the Susie Board-do-gooders of the world. The system is designed for the normal everyday user. When changes were being tested the last time and some of us were doing beta testing--we were told at that time that the Report Abuse feature was going to revert to its ORIGINAL purpose -- which didn't include reporting surname and subject box errors on old posts on the boards. That was an EVOLVED usage, and don't get me wrong--it DOES serve a valid purpose. But originally REPORT ABUSE was exactly what the name implies--reporting spam on boards and impersonations and things of that nature. I'd guess that is what the developers have in mind when they made the landing page after submitting a report go to the BOARD view instead of the thread you had been viewing. Joan -------------- >From my little foothold on reality, then, I don't see that it matters where the system dumps me if I complain about a post. (I mean, if I've just objected to something I've read, why would I want to keep reading it? Masochism??) I don't get it. Cheryl **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

<< It's possible to not realize that you may be posting multiple objections to the same thread. If an author on one of my boards clearly does not know how to post, when time allows I look at that author's posts elsewhere and post objections where needed. I don't open the threads, since I'm only looking at one particular author's posts. >> ---------- Lynne- I'm baffled as to how you can see a post and NOT see the thead--in EITHER view. In FLAT view the full text of the thread is still showing in the instance you describe and in THREAD view they are all there in outline format. So how you would NOT know the post is part of a THREAD is beyond me. << I'd hate to think that there are admins that would trash valid reports. If that's the case, why be a board admin at all? >> ------------ I would hate to think so too--and I don't want to give the impression that I condone doing that -- BUT -- there are limits to an admin's patience and I've personally received complaints from admins who are TRYING to maintain their boards but thinking of giving them up (which would be a shame) all because they have run into Susie Board-do-gooder who seems to spend 36 hours every day doing nothing but posting hundreds of objections on boards where Susie has decided the admin isn't maintaining the board. It would be more appropriate, if you feel an admin isn't maintaining their boards at all to file a few (3 or 4) objections on the board and then notify board staff of your suspicions that the admin isn't tending to the board--so staff can monitor whether or not the objections are tended to. My personal feeling is that objections serve a very valid use IF and WHEN someone is searching or browsing a board in their research (genealogical research--not picking on board admin research) and a misplaced post/duplicate post/incorrect surname entry, etc. causes trouble for them in their search. Certainly--report abuse so admin can fix the problem. But we do seem (from what I've heard from other admins) to have a few Susies floating around. << Gee, I have plenty of boards that have or had that many posts and it's always been my goal to review each and every post. IMHO, better service is provided to users and RootsWeb/Ancestry when we strive to review each and every post, rather than just the most current posts. >> ----- Well, good for you--but it certainly isn't required by the board rules, and we'd have far fewer board admins if it was. I'd rather spend my time helping people in their research and keeping the current posts in order on my boards than going back and rehashing messages from 10 years ago that probably no one is interested in or looking for any longer. My rule of thumb is that if they cause someone trouble--they can report it and I'll tend to it--if not--let sleeping dogs lie. Joan **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

Lynne, I truly am not being sarcastic when I say I'm happy for you that you can do that. I would if I could. But I have adopted some rather large boards that don't related to my research, simply because I felt they were too large to be un-adminned. So, I keep up with the current posts; and my preference, which I cannot *always* accomplish, is to clean the whole thread when a new post brings an old thread to the top. Sometimes I do an advanced search for things like "county" or "and" or "etc." in the surname boxes. But -- check every single message on, for example, the Wilson surname board? or Steuben Co., NY? Only if I win the lottery and can quit my job. Nan -----Original Message----- >From: Lynne <[email protected]> >Sent: Feb 11, 2008 10:49 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [BAd] Filing Obections not quite fixed > > >Gee, I have plenty of boards that have or had that many posts and it's >always been my goal to review each and every post. IMHO, better >service is provided to users and RootsWeb/Ancestry when we strive to >review each and every post, rather than just the most current posts. > >Lynne > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dan Anderson wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 2008 8:56 AM, singhals <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I'm still not _quite_ grasping your issue -- I don't see it > as any of _MY_ business how another admin runs their board, > and if 57 different people post messages on the Grammarham > board with a SUBJ: HELP!! seems to me that's 57 different > problems that are simply NMP; meanwhile, I've made a habit > of not-visiting/reading boards which have what I consider to > be too-much mis-information. > > From my little foothold on reality, then, I don't see that > it matters where the system dumps me if I complain about a > post. (I mean, if I've just objected to something I've > read, why would I want to keep reading it? Masochism??) > > I don't get it. > > Cheryl > > > > Cheryl, > > I'm finished trying to explain why I would wish to read the REPLIES to a > message I posted an objection on. My foothold on reality says there > might be valuable information in those replies. Apparently, to others, > a misclassification or inappropriate use of the surnames field in *one* > post of a thread negates the remainder of that thread. > > Dan Since you're having so much trouble trying to make your fellow-admins see what the issue is, it's small wonder the uber-admins don't fix it. Cheryl -- There should be no attachments on this message, unless I specifically mentioned them above.

[email protected] wrote: >Dan- > >If anyone is obsessing here it seems to be you in wanting to post multiple >objections on various posts within the same thread when the vast majority of >admins would only see this being redundant (not to mention becoming annoyed by >it and possibly just trashing your reports even if valid) and when you are >creating extra work for yourself for nothing. > > It's possible to not realize that you may be posting multiple objections to the same thread. If an author on one of my boards clearly does not know how to post, when time allows I look at that author's posts elsewhere and post objections where needed. I don't open the threads, since I'm only looking at one particular author's posts. If a board admin has removed the Re:'s from the beginning of subject lines or has changed the subject lines completely without moving the posts to a new thread, it can be very difficult to know if multiple objections are being made on different posts within the same thread. I would hope that admins that receive multiple objections for the same thread would act on every objection received and realize that it's not always possible to limit objections to one per thread. I'd hate to think that there are admins that would trash valid reports. If that's the case, why be a board admin at all? > >It sounded a bit like a slur when you wrote below "Unlike you, I clean up >everything (subjects, classifications and surnames) on every board I adopt." I'm > SO glad you and your boards are PERFECT but you have obviously not adopted >many boards with upwards of 20,000 posts on them and more than 12,000 threads >as I have. It would be an exercise in futility to attempt to review EVERY >previously posted thread on those boards. Obviously someone can call my >attention to any problems that arise when they do a search of the board. <snip> > > Gee, I have plenty of boards that have or had that many posts and it's always been my goal to review each and every post. IMHO, better service is provided to users and RootsWeb/Ancestry when we strive to review each and every post, rather than just the most current posts. Lynne

[email protected] wrote: >Dan- > >I would imagine most admins admin their boards and address objections >viewing the boards in FLAT MODE. The ONLY time THREAD view is more appropriate is >when you are trying to delete a post within a thread and you need to consider >which responses are attached to the post you wish to remove--otherwise--FLAT >VIEW is the way to go. <snip> > > As long as the job gets done, is it up to us to tell fellow admins how they should go about viewing their boards? Perhaps flat view is the way to go for some, but that is just not the case for everyone. I use both views, as I bet many of us do. If I already know that a board is clean, especially if it's a small board, I usually view the board in thread view. As Dan stated, if previous posts in a thread are clean, there's no reason to open the entire thread. Lynne

Dan Anderson wrote: > On Feb 10, 2008 4:24 PM, singhals <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I don't, myself, see much common-sense in re-reading a > thread you've already read once. I mean, if you're reading > the posts as they come in, why would you plow through each > time a new post comes in? If Post C was good when it was > fresh, it's probably still good when Post M is the fresh one. > > Cheryl > > > Cheryl, > > Me neither. I fully clean each board after I adopt it and review > messages as they are posted, editing when necessary right then. The > only reason I would review an entire thread again is if an objection > regarding topicality was raised. > > What I'm really addressing is reading a thread on a board I *do not* > admin. After filing an objection on post C, the "repaired" system takes > User to the initial board view (the list of threads) rather than back to > post C. Prior to the repair, User would have been taken back to Post > C. User has not read posts D-M (but wants to) therefore being taken to > the board view is inconvenient because User has to retrace the steps to > the point he/she was prior to filing the objection. > > Dan I'm still not _quite_ grasping your issue -- I don't see it as any of _MY_ business how another admin runs their board, and if 57 different people post messages on the Grammarham board with a SUBJ: HELP!! seems to me that's 57 different problems that are simply NMP; meanwhile, I've made a habit of not-visiting/reading boards which have what I consider to be too-much mis-information. From my little foothold on reality, then, I don't see that it matters where the system dumps me if I complain about a post. (I mean, if I've just objected to something I've read, why would I want to keep reading it? Masochism??) I don't get it. Cheryl -- There should be no attachments on this message, unless I specifically mentioned them above.

You may be having a bad day-- I don't know.. But... this List is meant to HELP. Biting other Admins helps no one. I'm going back to lurking (before I take my bad day out on someone). Judy On 2/10/08, Dan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > In snail mail or email: Be nice and read the message completely a 2nd > time to ensure you completely understand (or misunderstand or that pertinent > information was, in fact, omitted) the situation before hitting the reply > button. It is very easy and only takes a few moments ... far less time than > beating this dead horse. > > Dan >

Paul, The easiest way to eye-ball the "connections" is hold a ruler or piece of paper against the monitor, with the first word of #1 subject showing. You should see all the "Re"s on the left side of the ruler. Whatever is straight down are definitely connected to #1. Move in from the left and you should see #3 indented under #2 if 3 answers 2; 4 indents under 3 if 4 replies to 3. If so, 2,3,4 all "connect" to 1. But, sometimes, #1 has 4 replies, then someone replies to 2, then someone replies to 1... and by 10, 15, or 20, it can look pretty confusing. I always look for what someone replied to (the starting point)... then look at what "lines up" for that starting point. Since the starting point is NOT always #1 post, it can get tricky to figure out. Do the best you can. As to subject lines, it won't mess up connections. But, I like to keep the "root" of the subject line similar, and add what is different at the end. If #1 is President Clinton's family #2 is about location, say Georgia - Re: President Clinton's family in Georgia and #3 is about Hilary -- Re: President Clinton's family - Hilary #4 about his aunt -- Re: President Clinton's family - his aunt #5 about his grandparents -- Re: President Clinton's family - his grandparents That way, people can see at a glance what's the post focuses on. Better than seeing "President Clinton's family" on 22 posts. I especially hate location only subject lines, like "Millers in Georgia" -- every post is about a different Miller, so I add that "difference" to the subject line. Hope this helps. Judy == On 2/10/08, Paul A. Roth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have another question about Board Subject Boxes: > > I'm running into several threads that have 4 or more responses. In one, > the link to the response to the original post (subject: Roth) is indented > one space...the R is under the first post's o (in Roth). In hopes of > avoiding a lot of text, I hope the text below shows like it does in the > Responses:(without the numbers): > > 0 Roth > 1 Re: Roth > 2 Re: Roth > 3 Re: Roth > 4 Re: Roth > > In the numbered Roth(s) above, it looks like #3 is in answer to #1 and #4 > is in answer to the original query. > > If I change all of them to (example): > > Samuel ROTH, Berks Co. PA > Re: Samuel ROTH, Berks Co. PA , etc : > > Will it mess up the connections to the first post? > > Before any of you say ""Why are you doing this?" I'd just like to know for > my own edification. > > Another thread has 22 responses, so I'm not gonjg to touch that one...I > may decide to leave the one above alone as well...in the 22 response one, > several of the posts have entirely different subjects...it gets too > complicated. > > Originally, I wanted to change only the ones that had no responses other > than mine (about changing the subject boxes). > > Thanks for your indulgence. If the answers to my questions are posted > elsewhere, please direct me to that page and I'll leave you all alone...{;-) > > Paul

Dan- If anyone is obsessing here it seems to be you in wanting to post multiple objections on various posts within the same thread when the vast majority of admins would only see this being redundant (not to mention becoming annoyed by it and possibly just trashing your reports even if valid) and when you are creating extra work for yourself for nothing. It sounded a bit like a slur when you wrote below "Unlike you, I clean up everything (subjects, classifications and surnames) on every board I adopt." I'm SO glad you and your boards are PERFECT but you have obviously not adopted many boards with upwards of 20,000 posts on them and more than 12,000 threads as I have. It would be an exercise in futility to attempt to review EVERY previously posted thread on those boards. Obviously someone can call my attention to any problems that arise when they do a search of the board. I don't think you will find many admins who admin their boards in THREAD view other than when posts within a thread are to be deleted--so it isn't unrealistic to expect admin procedures and policies to apply to the manner in which MOST admins process actions on their boards. We have to accept the fact that the boards will never be perfect and we'd all drive ourselves crazy if we tried to make them so--we all do the best we can but I think most admins would not welcome multiple abuse reports on a single thread of messages. Joan ----------- Joan, We all have to determine what works best for us. IMO, that is exactly why board admin procedures have not been written "you must do it this way". Unlike you, I clean up everything (subjects, classifications and surnames) on every board I adopt. Obviously I cannot do that in one sitting when the board has several hundred posts. By viewing in Thread mode, an interruption does not cause me to waste time figuring out which messages in the thread I have already finished. The ones I have *not* edited are still clearly marked with my friends, the orange dots. If I were viewing in Flat mode, those orange dots would have been annihilated as soon as I opened the thread. My way works for me. Since I do clean up every message in every thread on every board I admin, I rarely have objections...no obituary is classified as a Query, Surname entries do not contain extraneous surnames or non-surnames, etc. However, on the rare occasion on objection has been filed, I don't usually *need* to review the entire thread because I've already done that. The only message I need to be concerned with is *the one* on which the objection was filed, unless the entire thread has been recently moved to the board (again, I can determine that because of the orange dots). I have no idea why you are obsessing over multiple objections in the same thread. I'm talking about READING messages and WHERE you are taken after filing an objection (again, think USER not admin). Prior to the "repair" we were taken back to the message on which we filed the objection. It is *inconvenient* to be returned to the opening page, from a user's standpoint. Dan **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

Will it mess up the connections to the first post? ------------ Paul- Simple answer is NO--changing the subjects won't have any effect on the attachment/association of a reply with the post to which is is attached--i.e. where it falls in the outline. Joan **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

Dan- I would imagine most admins admin their boards and address objections viewing the boards in FLAT MODE. The ONLY time THREAD view is more appropriate is when you are trying to delete a post within a thread and you need to consider which responses are attached to the post you wish to remove--otherwise--FLAT VIEW is the way to go. When I click on the post to review it from the objection page--I'm seeing the THREAD with my selected option of newest first on down to oldest in the thread. So posting MULTIPLE objections on posts in the SAME thread wouldn't be necessary--it's overkill. There would be nothing wrong with pointing out multiple problems within your single objection--note that the thread needs complete review--but don't post mulitple objections for a single thread. On the other hand--if/when board admin procedures are rewritten--this topic should be covered to include this action when reviewing objections so that admins will uniformly review by thread and not by message. Joan -------- Joan, I had never seen what you described ("can't tell...which post within a thread the objection is attached to"). On the rare occasions I have to deal with objections, I always see the message to which the objection pertains. However, with a little experimenting, I found the difference. In flat mode I saw the whole thread and was unable to distinguish which message was referenced by the objection. On the other hand, in thread view I saw the specific message. If the entire thread was recently moved to the board (which is evident to me by the orange "unread" dots), then I will review it in its entirety. Otherwise, I have already reviewed the entire thread and, there is *usually* no need to review it a second time. In this instance I'm thinking as a *user* rather than as an admin. If I'm reading the 4th (oldest to newest) of 28 messages in a thread and file an objection on that message, it is inconvenient to have to navigate back from the main page to read the remaining 24 posts after filing the objection. Dan **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

On Feb 10, 2008 6:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan- > > I would imagine most admins admin their boards and address objections > viewing the boards in FLAT MODE. The ONLY time THREAD view is more > appropriate is > when you are trying to delete a post within a thread and you need to > consider > which responses are attached to the post you wish to > remove--otherwise--FLAT > VIEW is the way to go. > > When I click on the post to review it from the objection page--I'm seeing > the THREAD with my selected option of newest first on down to oldest in > the > thread. So posting MULTIPLE objections on posts in the SAME thread > wouldn't be > necessary--it's overkill. There would be nothing wrong with pointing out > multiple problems within your single objection--note that the thread > needs > complete review--but don't post mulitple objections for a single thread. > On the > other hand--if/when board admin procedures are rewritten--this topic > should be > covered to include this action when reviewing objections so that admins > will > uniformly review by thread and not by message. > > Joan > Joan, We all have to determine what works best for us. IMO, that is exactly why board admin procedures have not been written "you must do it this way". Unlike you, I clean up everything (subjects, classifications and surnames) on every board I adopt. Obviously I cannot do that in one sitting when the board has several hundred posts. By viewing in Thread mode, an interruption does not cause me to waste time figuring out which messages in the thread I have already finished. The ones I have *not* edited are still clearly marked with my friends, the orange dots. If I were viewing in Flat mode, those orange dots would have been annihilated as soon as I opened the thread. My way works for me. Since I do clean up every message in every thread on every board I admin, I rarely have objections...no obituary is classified as a Query, Surname entries do not contain extraneous surnames or non-surnames, etc. However, on the rare occasion on objection has been filed, I don't usually *need* to review the entire thread because I've already done that. The only message I need to be concerned with is *the one* on which the objection was filed, unless the entire thread has been recently moved to the board (again, I can determine that because of the orange dots). I have no idea why you are obsessing over multiple objections in the same thread. I'm talking about READING messages and WHERE you are taken after filing an objection (again, think USER not admin). Prior to the "repair" we were taken back to the message on which we filed the objection. It is *inconvenient* to be returned to the opening page, from a user's standpoint. Dan

On Feb 10, 2008 4:24 PM, singhals <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't, myself, see much common-sense in re-reading a > thread you've already read once. I mean, if you're reading > the posts as they come in, why would you plow through each > time a new post comes in? If Post C was good when it was > fresh, it's probably still good when Post M is the fresh one. > > Cheryl > Cheryl, Me neither. I fully clean each board after I adopt it and review messages as they are posted, editing when necessary right then. The only reason I would review an entire thread again is if an objection regarding topicality was raised. What I'm really addressing is reading a thread on a board I *do not* admin. After filing an objection on post C, the "repaired" system takes User to the initial board view (the list of threads) rather than back to post C. Prior to the repair, User would have been taken back to Post C. User has not read posts D-M (but wants to) therefore being taken to the board view is inconvenient because User has to retrace the steps to the point he/she was prior to filing the objection. Dan

I don't, myself, see much common-sense in re-reading a thread you've already read once. I mean, if you're reading the posts as they come in, why would you plow through each time a new post comes in? If Post C was good when it was fresh, it's probably still good when Post M is the fresh one. Cheryl Dan Anderson wrote: [snip] > However, I fully understand the programmers/developers have no regard for > either the time of mere volunteers/users or for anything remotely resembling > common sense. > > Dan > > > > On Feb 9, 2008 1:53 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>I would think the board view makes sense in that if you have >>filed/registered your objection you wouldn't necessarily want to return to >>the thread you >>just objected to--you would be assumed to be moving on and want the board >>view. >> >>Joan >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- There should be no attachments on this message, unless I specifically mentioned them above.

Hi All, I have another question about Board Subject Boxes: I'm running into several threads that have 4 or more responses. In one, the link to the response to the original post (subject: Roth) is indented one space...the R is under the first post's o (in Roth). In hopes of avoiding a lot of text, I hope the text below shows like it does in the Responses:(without the numbers): 0 Roth 1 Re: Roth 2 Re: Roth 3 Re: Roth 4 Re: Roth In the numbered Roth(s) above, it looks like #3 is in answer to #1 and #4 is in answer to the original query. If I change all of them to (example): Samuel ROTH, Berks Co. PA Re: Samuel ROTH, Berks Co. PA , etc : Will it mess up the connections to the first post? Before any of you say ""Why are you doing this?" I'd just like to know for my own edification. Another thread has 22 responses, so I'm not gonjg to touch that one...I may decide to leave the one above alone as well...in the 22 response one, several of the posts have entirely different subjects...it gets too complicated. Originally, I wanted to change only the ones that had no responses other than mine (about changing the subject boxes). Thanks for your indulgence. If the answers to my questions are posted elsewhere, please direct me to that page and I'll leave you all alone...{;-) Paul