Hi all, In checking out the newly-redesigned message boards, I see that there is no longer an option to view the messages in chronological order, which is what I myself have always preferred. If it is still possible, where do I find that option? I always use the chronological view for board admin duties. -- Mary

In a message dated 12/6/2006 5:17:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, arbit@gmx.at writes: Hi Judy, ha ... sleep reading: I'm probably an expert with this myself. LOL Thanks for working through that thread. It's quite clear now how it's done. I had actually done this earlier, but had forgotten in particular how to securely identify the message to which a posting was a reply. Especially those threads with several replies to the first & original query. Collapsed view is nice when there's some structure in it, but less helpful with lots of unrelated stuff. And all this without an UNDO function ... brrrrrr. Tilman And actually everything discussed in this thread is about to go right out the window with the changes made today in the board interface. <g> I'll say one thing--they are keeping us on our toes. Joan

The boards have a new look. Check it out! -- Happy Holidays Please visit my greetings page http://www.jasche.com/XMas.html

Gee, I could have sworn we were told that the message board "improvements" had been put on hold indefinitely, but when I attempted to review my board this afternoon I was redirected to a RootsWeb page similar to one seen during beta testing. Unfortunately, it had no admin info nor a place to logon as an admin. If I go to the Ancestry side, I get the same ugly screen, but one that does include an admin login. Unfortunately, logging in doesn't take me to a list of adminned boards. It does, however, display my posts with the wrong author name. :-( There's nothing about this huge change on the Help pages, just the same notices about problems with the boards from November 20 and 28. I searched my InBox carefully and don't seem to have received any notification of this change. Anyone know anything about this? Lynne

Are the boards going to the new form now? I was sure hoping that the new idea would just go away and they would stay the old user friendly way. Not liking the new way at all....sure don't like having threads as the only way to read them.....sigh.....no, I don't think the new way is user friendly at all.. Kay Cutshall

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tilman Brandl" <arbit@gmx.at> To: <boards-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread Hi Valorie, thanks for the further advice - I'm glad I asked, because now things are pretty clear. As to mistyped words - I'll look at 'geneology' in particular. Could be done. (Ooops - just see I typed Valerie!). On my bigger board however with 10,000+ messages there are just too many, I've given up correcting typos. Unless it's something really urging. Tilman ------- Just a comment on cleaning up bigger boards for those who have missed previous discussions. There are lots of ways to deal with these but I have found the following helpful: (1) Use the Search box to identify words in subjects that you wish to fix. Just enter the incorrect spelling and you'll get a list of those posts. You can also do an Advanced Search on the Surnames box for extra words such as 'and'. (2) Don't forget that you can see more than 25 posts at a time by looking at the URL and changing the number. I usually use 100, just my preference. (3) Try working on longer threads with two screens open beside each other. (4) Use your Bookmarks/Favorites function to mark the page you are working on. After removing a post the board automatically goes back to the most recent page but you can click on the Bookmark and be right back where you want to be. When you finish a page, click on Next and make a new Bookmark (IE replaces the old one, Firefox just adds it). You can leave off any time and come back weeks later to the same spot this way. (5) When cleaning up very large surname boards consider adding a location to subject lines (if not already there). This makes it much easier to find just the posts for Johnstons in Maine and not those in Virginia. I usually only do this for posts where one of the boxes already needs editing because it is very time consuming. But, keep nibbling at them and the older posts will be much easier to find. I know there's much more, but perhaps this will help someone. Regards, Sharyn

Hi Judy, ha ... sleep reading: I'm probably an expert with this myself. LOL Thanks for working through that thread. It's quite clear now how it's done. I had actually done this earlier, but had forgotten in particular how to securely identify the message to which a posting was a reply. Especially those threads with several replies to the first & original query. Collapsed view is nice when there's some structure in it, but less helpful with lots of unrelated stuff. And all this without an UNDO function ... brrrrrr. Tilman -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Judy Florian An: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Dezember 2006 03:05 Betreff: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread Sorry about the URL; I must have been sleep-reading LOL Ok this thread is fairly easy. Wait till there are 25 or 50 posts and the indentations keep changing and nothing makes any sense, even with good subject lines. LOL Here is the thread again Austrian Geneology View replies Suhm & Reitzig : -- 24 Mar 2001 Re: Suhm & Reitzig : -- 22 Jan 2002 Re: Suhm & Reitzig : -- 5 Sep 2006 Ancesters : -- 1 Apr 2001 Casper & Maria Augustin : -- 31 May 2001 Re: Austrian Geneology : -- 28 Nov 2001 Re: Austrian Geneology First: Move Casper & Maria Augustin : -- 31 May 2001 Second: Move Ancesters : -- 1 Apr 2001 Third: Move the FIRST Suhm & Reitzig : -- 24 Mar 2001 -- you might slightly freak and need to check both threads. It should have moved all 3 these--Suhm & Reitzig : -- 24 Mar 2001 Re: Suhm & Reitzig : -- 22 Jan 2002 Re: Suhm & Reitzig : -- 5 Sep 2006 Then you should have these in a thread: Austrian Geneology Re: Austrian Geneology : -- 28 Nov 2001 Re: Austrian Geneology Voila! Judy On 12/5/06, Tilman Brandl <arbit@gmx.at> wrote: > > Hi Judy, > > thanks for your time and elaborate explanations. If you're telling me to > be careful with cutting threads, you've got my full attention. Being careful > was my reason for posting this question ... ;-) > > > Maybe if you tell me the URL for the thread, ... < > > This was in my last message: > http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/EkC.2ACE/510 >

Hi Valorie, thanks for the further advice - I'm glad I asked, because now things are pretty clear. As to mistyped words - I'll look at 'geneology' in particular. Could be done. (Ooops - just see I typed Valerie!). On my bigger board however with 10,000+ messages there are just too many, I've given up correcting typos. Unless it's something really urging. Tilman -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Valorie Zimmerman An: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Dezember 2006 12:32 Betreff: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread On Monday 04 December 2006 1:52 pm, Tilman Brandl wrote: > Hi, > > I have adopted the Vienna /Austria board that I try to clean up a bit. > > Now it seems that I've forgotten how to properly cut threads that aren't > connected by subject or surnames. > > 1. Below is the thread collapsed view. I guess all messages like Ancesters > and below are related only to the starting message, right? So if I move the > (unrelated) Ancesters message to that same board, would the rest stay where > it is now? Of course I could simply try and see what happens but cannot > move back a posting into a thread later if I am wrong. Can anybody with > more experience with this give me a hint? I haven't analyzed the full > thread but, ::snip:: You have gotten some good advice, Tilman. I always start with changing the Subject lines to reflect the subject of the posts. Correcting "geneology" would be a priority, LOL! I abhor that misspelling, and over-general subject lines reduce the usefulness of our boards greatly. When you have a post open, and scroll down to the bottom, you can see all replies. When you move a post, all the replies, and replies to those replies, and so on, will go with it. So it IS possible to move a small thread out of the "middle" of what appears to be a larger thread. I don't have to do it often, but I have successfully done it. If you are going to move a thread to another board, be SURE to do all the editing you need to do first, because once it is on another board, it is up to the other admin to fix the surname indexing line, etc. All the best, Valorie

Are all the message Boards down? I just tried to log into my boards to update them, and I get the following page on all my board accounts after I type in my Username and Password. Marilyn You are not authorized to view this page The Web server you are attempting to reach has a list of IP addresses that are not allowed to access the Web site, and the IP address of your browsing computer is on this list. Please try the following: * Contact the Web site administrator if you believe you should be able to view this directory or page. HTTP Error 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address of the client has been rejected. Internet Information Services (IIS) Technical Information (for support personnel) * Go to _Microsoft Product Support Services_ (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=8180) and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 403. * Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled About Security, Limiting Access by IP Address, IP Address Access Restrictions, and About Custom Error Messages

So now we cannot view expanded threads? We have to click on EACH message individually to view? Some improvement <]: p I hope I missed something that tells me I'm wrong. Nancy ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com

I'm unable to log in to admin my boards. Clicking on the link leads to a 404 Not Found error. After trying several times, I wrote a post on the Boards-Admin Board, but when I clicked to post the message got a message saying the redirect wasn't working. I don't see anything on Help Desk about board problems other than the ones that have been there since November. Is this a known problem or should it be reported? Thanks, Beth

Joan, thanks for the detailed explanation. Meanwhile I have got quite a clear idea about how this all works. And if I ever have to split up threads again later I'll go back to this one thread here for brushing up on all this. Tilman -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: JYoung6180@aol.com An: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Dezember 2006 21:30 Betreff: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread In a message dated 12/5/2006 9:58:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, arbit@gmx.at writes: Joan, you wrote: > If you move part of a thread--all messages that follow the one you move in the thread will move along with it to a new position on the board. Any replies attached at an earlier point in the thread will not move. < Understood, at least I guess so. Anyway, to rephrase my question from an earlier message: In order to distinguish between "messages that follow the one you move" and "replies attached at an earlier point in the thread" all I need to do is looking at the indentations in collapsed view? This is where I felt a bit unsecure, especially with a list of several messages that are not indented. If I understand it correctly, these all are not connected to each other but each of them only and directly to the first message in the thread? Thanks Tilman I'll try to show you with an example: A B C D E F G H Let's say the above is a thread of messages on a board. B is a reply to A and C a reply to B and D a reply to C and E a reply to D. F is a reply to B and G a reply to F. H is a reply to A. Let's say all of the thread fits together as a thread until post C which changes topic but is suitable for the current board and D and E should remain attached to C. If you move post C to a new location on the board D and E will automatically move with it, but F, G, and H will not because they are in reply to (directly attached to) posts that precede the one you are moving in the thread. If you move post D only E will move with it. If you move B everything will move with it except for A and H. If you want to move C but D and E should stand on their own in separate threads--then move E first to a new original spot on the board, then D, and the finally C. The one thing you can't do is break up a thread and leave what is left of it (following the moved post) within the same thread where it was originally. In other words---maybe C should move but D and E belong in the original thread--in that case you are best leaving the thread alone because you can't reconstruct it after moving a post in the middle. Joan

Sharyn, >When you click on a message in collapsed mode and it comes up, ALL posts attached to it come up below it< Ahhh ... of course, yes. Actually it never ocurred to me that I can find all connected messages in a thread that way and see where the whole thing is 'splittable' (probably not really a word ... LOL). That's it! Thanks a lot Tilman -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sharyn Hay An: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Dezember 2006 15:31 Betreff: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tilman Brandl" <arbit@gmx.at> To: <boards-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread snip > > My main question is: Is judging a message's position in a thread from indentations in collapsed view the one and only correct method? There's nothig else that would give me a clue, right? > > Any tips would be accepted most gratefully. > > Thanks > Tilman > When you click on a message in collapsed mode and it comes up, ALL posts attached to it come up below it. So, if a post attached to it pertains to the original post in the thread, and could not stand alone, then it is best to just fix subject lines and leave it alone. I agree with the person who said to fix subject lines first and then do the splitting. It quickly becomes clear whether later replies pertain to the original and make the thread, or portions of it, not splittable (is that a word, LOL?). I have old threads on boards that are 50+ replies long and cover 10 or more subjects. It takes practice to figure out ways to make sense of them but when you fix the subjects and re-arrange them as needed the posts become much easier to follow and it is worth the effort. Sometimes it just isn't possible and readers will have to figure them out. Regards, Sharyn

Sorry about the URL; I must have been sleep-reading LOL Ok this thread is fairly easy. Wait till there are 25 or 50 posts and the indentations keep changing and nothing makes any sense, even with good subject lines. LOL Here is the thread again Austrian Geneology View replies Suhm & Reitzig : -- 24 Mar 2001 Re: Suhm & Reitzig : -- 22 Jan 2002 Re: Suhm & Reitzig : -- 5 Sep 2006 Ancesters : -- 1 Apr 2001 Casper & Maria Augustin : -- 31 May 2001 Re: Austrian Geneology : -- 28 Nov 2001 Re: Austrian Geneology First: Move Casper & Maria Augustin : -- 31 May 2001 Second: Move Ancesters : -- 1 Apr 2001 Third: Move the FIRST Suhm & Reitzig : -- 24 Mar 2001 -- you might slightly freak and need to check both threads. It should have moved all 3 these--Suhm & Reitzig : -- 24 Mar 2001 Re: Suhm & Reitzig : -- 22 Jan 2002 Re: Suhm & Reitzig : -- 5 Sep 2006 Then you should have these in a thread: Austrian Geneology Re: Austrian Geneology : -- 28 Nov 2001 Re: Austrian Geneology Voila! Judy On 12/5/06, Tilman Brandl <arbit@gmx.at> wrote: > > Hi Judy, > > thanks for your time and elaborate explanations. If you're telling me to > be careful with cutting threads, you've got my full attention. Being careful > was my reason for posting this question ... ;-) > > > Maybe if you tell me the URL for the thread, ... < > > This was in my last message: > http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/EkC.2ACE/510 >

ONE every 3 to 4 months is not multiple postings. I usually leave them on the Board & most of my 3mo. re-posts do have someone replying even tho not helpful to the 1st poster. I got one lady on OLD boards who re-posted every few days but she's smack in the middle of threads that can't be broken up. Now, hers I'd like to delete -- some -- but I can't. Judy On 12/5/06, Kaesemein@aol.com <Kaesemein@aol.com> wrote: > > Hello Fellow Admins. > > I'd appreciate your opinion on this: > > Someone posted a message looking for family connections on one of my > boards > in Feb. They posted the exact same message again 3 months later, in May, > probably because they didn't get any replies to the first posting > and they > haven't received any replies to the second posting either -- at least > not on the > board. > > Is this considered a "multiple posting" and should one of the posts be > deleted? I was thinking about deleting the one posted in Feb. Is it > acceptable > for someone to post the same message over and over again.....such as > every 3 > or 4 months trying to get a response? > > Thanks for your advice, > Marilyn > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BOARDS-ADMINS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- ~PRIMARY NAMES: ANTHONY, BAKER, FLOWERS, LANE, SEPTER~ Washington Co PA free Websites: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~florian http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~florian County Coordinator for http://www.rootsweb.com/~pawashin/ Send mail to washington.co.pa.webmaster"AT"gmail.com Researchers of Washington County PA, join our map: http://www.frappr.com/researchingwashingtoncopa Steve Irwin Warriors please sign map at: http://www.frappr.com/steveirwinwarriors

In a message dated 12/5/2006 6:51:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kaesemein@aol.com writes: Hello Again, I have a question about the surname search engine on the boards. If a poster types the surnames ONLY in the subject line and body of the message, but not in the surname window, does the search engine still pick all of them up? I'm noticing some posts of Eastern European surnames on one of my boards, where the poster types variant spellings in the Subject line, but only types the main spelling in the surname window. Will the search engine also pick up the variant spellings in the subject line? Thanks for your help, Marilyn Marilyn- It depends on the type of search the person is doing. If they are searching with an "every word" general search -- then, yes...they will find the surname. However, if they do an advanced search of the surname field, they won't. Joan

In a message dated 12/5/2006 5:28:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kaesemein@aol.com writes: Is this considered a "multiple posting" and should one of the posts be deleted? No--I would not consider that a duplicate. I'm amazed that you would remember what someone posted 3 months ago. I can barely remember what someone posted last week. <g> Joan

Thanks, Jackie these were clear word, no questions left unanswered. Seems I'm getting rid of my headaches <g> Tilman -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jackie Wilson Goddard An: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Dezember 2006 13:55 Betreff: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread Tilman, I've renumbered the thread slightly for clarification. 1-5 are direct replies to the original message, while 1a and 1b are replies to 1. None of the others have "other messages attached". 1. Suhm & Reitzig : Kim Ranger -- 24 Mar 2001 1a. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Lawrence Suhm -- 22 Jan 2002 1b. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Mary Sims -- 5 Sep 2006 2. Ancesters : Nancy Idell -- 1 Apr 2001 3. Casper & Maria Augustin : Barb Peace -- 31 May 2001 4. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson -- 28 Nov 2001 5. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson-Schlosser -- 28 Feb 2002 At 11:00 PM 12/4/2006, you wrote: >#1. Suhm & Reitzig already was unrelated but is of course in answer >to #0. If I move it and make it a thread of it's own, it will >certainly go together with the #2. + #3. answers that follow. That'll be fine. Correct. These three will stay together and should be moved to a thread of their own as unrelated to Original Message. >#4. Ancesters - what about this one and all the rest? From the >indentation these (at least #4.) technically appear to be answers to >#0. so would stay where they are, climbing up the tree however, thus >becoming a new #1. etc., right? That same problem of before I guess >is that this one again has no relation to the original query, so >should be made standalone too. > >#5. Casper & Maria Augustin again is unrelated to the original query >#0. but technically again a direct answert to #0. if I'm not >mistaken. I would follow that same procedure here and make it a >seperate thread - unless other messages are attached, which again - >judging from missing indentation - is NOT the case. Move each of these messages out of the thread since they are unrelated. >#6. and #7. both are the only legitimate answers to the original >query, not indented and therefore a direct reply each, and should >stay with it. Right? Correct. The first time I broke a thread I remember being surprised "where" the new threads ended up in the Board view but now I can't tell you the details because it was a LONG time ago.... I want to say each new thread was in the appropriate place in the thread view *chronologically* but don't hold me to that! ;-) They *might* have been above the original message. (In "date view" they would still be in the same order, of course.) Okay, my tip: Mark the replies to #1 as "unread". Take a deep breath and move #1. (I promise the messages won't end up in Never-Never Land. :-)) You'll have to look at the board view to see where the messages are - but the "unread" replies will make them easier to find. Jackie

I've wondered about that myself. I have people who post the same message every month or so. They treat the boards like mailing lists. I have not deleted anything but I have been very tempted. Diane Hettrick dhettrick@earthlink.net On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Kaesemein@aol.com wrote: > Hello Fellow Admins. > > I'd appreciate your opinion on this: > > Someone posted a message looking for family connections on one of my > boards > in Feb. They posted the exact same message again 3 months later, in > May, > probably because they didn't get any replies to the first posting and > they > haven't received any replies to the second posting either -- at least > not on the > board. > > Is this considered a "multiple posting" and should one of the posts be > deleted? I was thinking about deleting the one posted in Feb. Is > it acceptable > for someone to post the same message over and over again.....such as > every 3 > or 4 months trying to get a response? > > Thanks for your advice, > Marilyn >

In a message dated 12/5/2006 9:58:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, arbit@gmx.at writes: Joan, you wrote: > If you move part of a thread--all messages that follow the one you move in the thread will move along with it to a new position on the board. Any replies attached at an earlier point in the thread will not move. < Understood, at least I guess so. Anyway, to rephrase my question from an earlier message: In order to distinguish between "messages that follow the one you move" and "replies attached at an earlier point in the thread" all I need to do is looking at the indentations in collapsed view? This is where I felt a bit unsecure, especially with a list of several messages that are not indented. If I understand it correctly, these all are not connected to each other but each of them only and directly to the first message in the thread? Thanks Tilman I'll try to show you with an example: A B C D E F G H Let's say the above is a thread of messages on a board. B is a reply to A and C a reply to B and D a reply to C and E a reply to D. F is a reply to B and G a reply to F. H is a reply to A. Let's say all of the thread fits together as a thread until post C which changes topic but is suitable for the current board and D and E should remain attached to C. If you move post C to a new location on the board D and E will automatically move with it, but F, G, and H will not because they are in reply to (directly attached to) posts that precede the one you are moving in the thread. If you move post D only E will move with it. If you move B everything will move with it except for A and H. If you want to move C but D and E should stand on their own in separate threads--then move E first to a new original spot on the board, then D, and the finally C. The one thing you can't do is break up a thread and leave what is left of it (following the moved post) within the same thread where it was originally. In other words---maybe C should move but D and E belong in the original thread--in that case you are best leaving the thread alone because you can't reconstruct it after moving a post in the middle. Joan