On Feb 10, 2008 1:09 PM, Judy Florian <[email protected]> wrote: > Be nice and re-explain. It'd only takes 2 or 3 sentences to be nice. > Nobody > misreads on purpose. > > Judy > Judy, 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

On Feb 10, 2008 12:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan- > > I'm only speaking for ME as one admin -- but I would be a bit upset if > someone posted objections for MULTIPLE posts within the same thread > because with > the current structure of the boards we can only view the thread--not > individual > messages. So if I am tending to an abuse report on a post within a > thread > I can't tell (other than by reading the text of the objection) which post > within a thread the objection is attached to--therefore, I review the > entire > thread when an objection is attached to it and I would hope that all > admins do > likewise. So it is completely unnecessary (not to mention annoying) to > find > objections attached to MULTIPLE posts within a thread I'm already being > drawn > to for review. > > 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

"Statement of fact" -- I can make a factual statement nicely, or harshly. The above statement of mine was more harsh than, "Oh, I thought I stated the facts, but just to clarify my post, I was meaning....(and explain)." As comparison, if you (meaning any person) wrote a snail mail, and the receiver replied "I don't understand what you meant"...would you then reply "Well I don't know why! It was all in my 1st letter." No, most people would send a 2nd mail and re-explain the first mail. Instead, on the Internet, we (meaning any persons) fire back a quick retort "I said it in my first mail" and it comes across as "What's wrong with YOU, are you so dense you didn't get it the first time? It's all in my first mail---re-read it!" We're all busy. If someone didn't "get" a post the first time, so what. Sometimes even with *careful reading* a post is misunderstood-- so what? Be nice and re-explain. It'd only takes 2 or 3 sentences to be nice. Nobody misreads on purpose. Judy On 2/10/08, Dan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2008 1:41 PM, Mo! Langdon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Goodness! That's a rather um, er, em... harsh > > (yeah, that's the ticket...) answer to someone > > who's only trying to help, isn't it? I know what > > *I* would do if I got such an answer back. > > > > Slán, > > > > > Mo, > > You call it harsh. I call it a statement of fact. > Fact: my original post included all the necessary information to > understand > the situation. > Fact: if the complete post was read, clarification was unnecessary. > > Dan

Dan- I'm only speaking for ME as one admin -- but I would be a bit upset if someone posted objections for MULTIPLE posts within the same thread because with the current structure of the boards we can only view the thread--not individual messages. So if I am tending to an abuse report on a post within a thread I can't tell (other than by reading the text of the objection) which post within a thread the objection is attached to--therefore, I review the entire thread when an objection is attached to it and I would hope that all admins do likewise. So it is completely unnecessary (not to mention annoying) to find objections attached to MULTIPLE posts within a thread I'm already being drawn to for review. Joan -------------- It doesn't make sense unless you are finished with the thread or it only has 1 message. When reading a thread with multiple responses and I come across a message that needs an objection, I file the objection immediately then continue reading the thread. IMO, this is the most efficient method - if I finished reading the thread, I would then have to backtrack to find the message on which to file the objection - in a long thread, this would be quite time consuming. Also, since the programmers/developers have determined there is no need for a means to "skip" to a previous page of threads, if the thread I was reading was on the 7th page, I have to waste my time to navigate back to where I was to proceed to the following thread. Returning to the board view when deleting or moving makes sense *only* when the entire thread is deleted/moved. This was one of the downgrades of the December (2006) Debacle - on the previous system, if a message was deleted/moved from *within* a thread, you were taken back *to the thread* - a point near to your previous place. 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 **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

Mary- No--the Board Admins list is not "wired" in any special way like listowners-L is. So your attempts to subscribe your new address SHOULD work. Possibly new subs are reviewed by the admin--and, if so, that might take some time. Check your list of subscribed lists to see if you might be subbed under the new address and you just failed to receive the welcome letter. Joan -------- What I'm not sure about is if there is a similar check on subscriptions to boards-admins as there is on listowners, and if so, how long do I need to wait before I can successfully subscribe from my other address? I have already tried to subscribe from the other address, but so far it hasn't been processed. I'm now figuring that maybe I need to wait a while first. If so, how long? **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

>Paul, IMHO, you put yourself through a lot of extra work for >nothing. I value IMHOs...{:-) But I have the time and if it might help someone, I'm happy to do it. >It's not necessary for you to post a reply advising the poster to >upgrade their subject line, because they wouldn't be able to do it >anyway -- they would have to post a whole new message. In my messages I offered to make the changes for them...I've been an Admin for over 8 years and have seen Flame Wars start over relatively inconsequential statements...just trying to keep the peace. >Fixing poorly worded subject lines is part of the job of what Board >Admins do. I've been doing it for years and no one has ever >complained. Thanks for answering both questions, Marilyn. You too, Lynne {:-) Regards, Paul

On Feb 9, 2008 2:58 PM, Paul A. Roth <[email protected]> wrote: > Just wondering, has anyone else changed the subject boxes on their boards > without being asked to do so? and has any board poster ever complained > about it? Every time I adopt a board, I do a full board clean up including editing subjects. I never notify, or attempt to notify the posters of those old posts. I only notify authors of *new* posts of edits. Rarely do I receive any type of response. Of those few responses, 99.99% are "thanks I didn't know that". In the five years I've been adminning, there have been 3 or 4 complaints out of some 700 messages sent to authors. However, remember the Community Guidelines state: "We reserve the right to delete messages that violate our Acceptable Use Policy, move messages posted in the wrong place and **edit the surname field, subject line, etc. in any message. We reserve the right to do any of the above without notice** in order to preserve community integrity and ensure that people can find what they're seeking." (emphasis added) Dan

It doesn't make sense unless you are finished with the thread or it only has 1 message. When reading a thread with multiple responses and I come across a message that needs an objection, I file the objection immediately then continue reading the thread. IMO, this is the most efficient method - if I finished reading the thread, I would then have to backtrack to find the message on which to file the objection - in a long thread, this would be quite time consuming. Also, since the programmers/developers have determined there is no need for a means to "skip" to a previous page of threads, if the thread I was reading was on the 7th page, I have to waste my time to navigate back to where I was to proceed to the following thread. Returning to the board view when deleting or moving makes sense *only* when the entire thread is deleted/moved. This was one of the downgrades of the December (2006) Debacle - on the previous system, if a message was deleted/moved from *within* a thread, you were taken back *to the thread* - a point near to your previous place. 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 >

On Feb 9, 2008 1:41 PM, Mo! Langdon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Goodness! That's a rather um, er, em... harsh > (yeah, that's the ticket...) answer to someone > who's only trying to help, isn't it? I know what > *I* would do if I got such an answer back. > > Slán, > > Mo, You call it harsh. I call it a statement of fact. Fact: my original post included all the necessary information to understand the situation. Fact: if the complete post was read, clarification was unnecessary. Dan

As I mentioned over on Listowners, I am losing access to the syr.edu mail server at the end of next week, so I am in the process of changing my e-mail address. I have successfully managed to change my address for all list-admin related items, and now need to take care of board-admin related items, such as this list. I have updated the e-mail address in my profile to [email protected], and have also updated the e-mail address shown under Board Info for all the boards that I admin. Now I would like to change the e-mail address for this mailing list (yes, I know that means subscribing the new address and unsubscribing the old address). What I'm not sure about is if there is a similar check on subscriptions to boards-admins as there is on listowners, and if so, how long do I need to wait before I can successfully subscribe from my other address? I have already tried to subscribe from the other address, but so far it hasn't been processed. I'm now figuring that maybe I need to wait a while first. If so, how long? -- Thanks, Mary [who wishes she had more than 1.5 weeks to change her e-mail address everywhere she has ever used it in the past 12.5 years....]

Paul A. Roth wrote: ><snip> > > So far, during my Board Admin-ship, I've had no "objections" posted. Just wondering, has anyone else changed the subject boxes on their boards without being asked to do so? > Just about every single day. I usually leave what the poster already used and add the pertinent details, such as date and location and, if possible, what the author is seeking. >and has any board poster ever complained about it? > Nope. Lynne

In a message dated 2/9/2008 3:59:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: So far, during my Board Admin-ship, I've had no "objections" posted. Just wondering, has anyone else changed the subject boxes on their boards without being asked to do so? and has any board poster ever complained about it? Thanks, Paul -------------------------------- Paul, IMHO, you put yourself through a lot of extra work for nothing. If you see a subject line that you think will not get any responses, looks ineffective, or is incomplete, just go ahead and change it! It's not necessary for you to post a reply advising the poster to upgrade their subject line, because they wouldn't be able to do it anyway -- they would have to post a whole new message. Fixing poorly worded subject lines is part of the job of what Board Admins do. I've been doing it for years and no one has ever complained. Marilyn **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

Mo and Dan- The reason I asked the question in the first place is that what you are doing at the time you hit SUBMIT governs what might be expected as to where you'd want to be landing after you do so. 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 ----------- Goodness! That's a rather um, er, em... harsh (yeah, that's the ticket...) answer to someone who's only trying to help, isn't it? I know what *I* would do if I got such an answer back. **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

But Mo, didn't you know that harshness is common on this particular list? Sad isn't it? On Feb 9, 2008 1:41 PM, Mo! Langdon <[email protected]> wrote: > At 1:01 AM -0700 2/9/08, Dan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Joan, > > > >Read the Subject of the post, then the message body itself and it doesn't > >need clarified at all. > > Goodness! That's a rather um, er, em... harsh > (yeah, that's the ticket...) answer to someone > who's only trying to help, isn't it? I know what > *I* would do if I got such an answer back. > > Slán, > > > > Mo! > -- -- Take care, Kathie Harrison http://whispers.ancestralwhispers.com/

Hi Folks, In May of last year, late at night, I went through my ROTH Boards (over 786 threads), searching for posts that only had, in their subject boxes: "ROTH", "ROTH Family", "Searching for ROTHs", "HELP!!" etc. and/or no surnames in the Surname Boxes. I then sent a "correct subject box form letter" to each one (via the board) tailoring each letter to the particular names found in the posts. I completely forgot about the gateway to my ROTH lists. (bad Admin !) and got roasted by a few of my ROTH List subscribers. Apologies made, Lesson learned. No more complaints. I then tried to send similar posts privately to the "offenders" and most of them bounced due to old email addresses not updated. Yesterday, I went back to the boards. Most of the unchanged-subject-box posts had no or few responses...so I began changing the subject boxes using the actual names/date/locations they were searching for... With the posts that did have a few responses, I also changed each response subject box with the same changed subject line: Roth / Re: Roth to (example) Michael ROTH - Brooklyn NY / Re: Michael ROTH - Brooklyn NY. And with the blank surname boxes, I entered the surnames found in the posts. Then I deleted my "Correct subject box explanation" post to free up space. I changed 15 last night and 9 more today...I have over 20 more to go...(I only checked to the #400s So far, during my Board Admin-ship, I've had no "objections" posted. Just wondering, has anyone else changed the subject boxes on their boards without being asked to do so? and has any board poster ever complained about it? Thanks, Paul

At 1:01 AM -0700 2/9/08, Dan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: >Joan, > >Read the Subject of the post, then the message body itself and it doesn't >need clarified at all. Goodness! That's a rather um, er, em... harsh (yeah, that's the ticket...) answer to someone who's only trying to help, isn't it? I know what *I* would do if I got such an answer back. Slán, Mo! -- <http://xri.net/=mobang>

Joan, Read the Subject of the post, then the message body itself and it doesn't need clarified at all. Dan On Feb 8, 2008 10:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > -Dan- > > Can you clarify please? Where are you clicking the "Submit" button that > you > are being taken to the board view? This was always the case if you > clicked > submit to MOVE a post or DELETE a post--but not if you edit a post. > That's > why I'm asking which submit action are you now seeing that has changed? > > Joan > > > > > > **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. > ( > http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 > 48) > > ------------------------------- > 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- Can you clarify please? Where are you clicking the "Submit" button that you are being taken to the board view? This was always the case if you clicked submit to MOVE a post or DELETE a post--but not if you edit a post. That's why I'm asking which submit action are you now seeing that has changed? Joan ---------- After clicking the submit button, you are now taken back to the *board view* rather than the message. Inconvenient to say the least... Dan **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)

After clicking the submit button, you are now taken back to the *board view* rather than the message. Inconvenient to say the least... Dan

Diane- You cannot transfer a board in that manner because it won't be associated with YOUR username and password. The board admin (the old one) has to contact board staff at: [email protected] and let staff know that he wants to transfer the board to you. Staff will then orphan the board and the volunteer to admin link will go up on the board. As the chosen new admin you are then given one week to adopt the board in the normal manner before anyone else may adopt it. Joan --------- I have been given a board by the owner but I'm not sure how to transfer the ownership. He did a temporary password so I could get in and change it but when I go to the board and the admin center, it just gives me a list of my other boards and tells me I'm not an owner on this board. What's the process, please? Diane Diane Hettrick [email protected] **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48)