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

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

----- Original Message ----- From: <Kaesemein@aol.com> To: <boards-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:06 AM Subject: [BAd] "Multiple Postings?" > 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 > My personal response to this, and it happens many times, is to remove old posts (1) that are IDENTICAL and (2) have NO replies. One of the reasons I have found for this is that the oldest posts often have outdated email addresses and the newer one is more updated. I have no problem with people re-posting but wonder if they really have NOTHING new to add and if they should try another board. Regards, Sharyn

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 All I need to know is whether the following items taken together are correct: (1) Each single message below of and directly replying to the original query (not indented) can be moved into a separate thread. (2) Any direct answers to such moved posts that might follow - indicated by indentation - will be moved with them. (3) Any other following but unindented messages below, linked to the original query, together with indented further answers to them, will NOT get moved but stay in the original thread. Is this correct ? Guess I'll anyway go and just set up a dummy thread for testing and hope nobody will see it before I can delete it again. Tilman -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Judy Florian An: boards-admins@rootsweb.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Dezember 2006 01:38 Betreff: Re: [BAd] Problem with taking apart a thread > > a.. Suhm & Reitzig : Kim Ranger -- 24 Mar 2001 > a.. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Lawrence Suhm -- 22 Jan 2002 > b.. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Mary Sims -- 5 Sep 2006 > a.. Ancesters : Nancy Idell -- 1 Apr 2001 > a.. Casper & Maria Augustin : Barb Peace -- 31 May 2001 > a.. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson -- 28 Nov 2001 > a.. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson-Schlosser -- 28 Feb 2002 IMPORTANT: the directions below are ONLY for the end of the thread OR if the posts you'll move are UN-ATTACHED to the "main" (I can't be sure from your post IF these are unattached or not). Usually, posts further down that might move well are "flush-left" under the 1st posting. The flush-left posts might be 20 posts down in the thread. BUT always, always, always double check that what you decide to move will NOT take pieces with it that you did not intend! For example, if you started with a.. Ancesters : Nancy Idell, the move could take all the other 3 with it in the move. ALSO IF there are ANY other posts you did not list that are below these in the thread, then ALL those will "move" along with the ones below. ALWAYS review collapsed view of a thread to visually find where a thread can be broken. A useful tip on LONG threads is to fix all the posts first. Then COPY/PASTE the Collapsed View into Windows Notepad or even a blank email box -- whichever retains the indent/bullets. Then you can put spaces between what you want to break and see IF it would work as you intend. ALSO, you can put something in a couple subject lines *temporarily*, like a capital Z, so you can better "see" the posts you intend to move. Once you are SURE of the effect of your intended move, then delete your capital Z *first* (it's easier now than to hunt for the posts after the move). Then, move the posts. Go to the first Austrian Genealogy (by the way, genealogy does not have 2 o's in it, instead it is ealo.... Anyway, remove the Re: from the first one, save changes. Then, move by typing surnames.name-of-board Repeat steps for Casper and Maria Finally, repeat for Ancestors (Ancestors has an "e" then an "o" instead of e & e) Hope these steps help. Judy

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

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 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.7/569 - Release Date: 12/5/2006

----- 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

Hi guys, seems I didn't express myself well. Also, I thought the collapsed view I pasted would come across in the email, alas you all seem to receive text-only, so maybe next time I should switch to the board instead! For the time being though, since I've started it on-list ... Sofar, (1) I still feel not too sure about when I'll be safe with moving a message out of the middle of a thread ... and (2) I know how to move a message, that's not my problem or question. (3) does anybody know an answer to my earlier question re. a testbed board where one can set up dummy threads, try to repair and also destroy them ? Here's the full text-replica of the thread at http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/EkC.2ACE/510 , with indentations like in collapsed view, and a few explanations added afterwards: 0. Austrian Genoalogy : Susan nnnnnn -- 2 Feb 2000 1. Suhm & Reitzig : Kim Ranger -- 24 Mar 2001 2. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Lawrence Suhm -- 22 Jan 2002 3. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Mary Sims -- 5 Sep 2006 4. Ancesters : Nancy Idell -- 1 Apr 2001 5. Casper & Maria Augustin : Barb Peace -- 31 May 2001 6. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson -- 28 Nov 2001 7. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson-Schlosser -- 28 Feb 2002 #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. #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. #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? 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

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

When I first started Admining, I was *terrified* to try to break a thread. Maybe if you tell me the URL for the thread, I can look at the indenting & have a better idea where the thread could be broken. Judy On 12/5/06, Tilman Brandl <arbit@gmx.at> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > seems I didn't express myself well. Also, I thought the collapsed view I > pasted would come across in the email, alas you all seem to receive > text-only, so maybe next time I should switch to the board instead! For the > time being though, since I've started it on-list ... > > Sofar, (1) I still feel not too sure about when I'll be safe with moving a > message out of the middle of a thread ... and (2) I know how to move a > message, that's not my problem or question. (3) does anybody know an answer > to my earlier question re. a testbed board where one can set up dummy > threads, try to repair and also destroy them ? > > Here's the full text-replica of the thread at > http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/EkC.2ACE/510 , with indentations > like in collapsed view, and a few explanations added afterwards: > > 0. Austrian Genoalogy : Susan nnnnnn -- 2 Feb 2000 > 1. Suhm & Reitzig : Kim Ranger -- 24 Mar 2001 > 2. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Lawrence Suhm -- 22 Jan 2002 > 3. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Mary Sims -- 5 Sep 2006 > 4. Ancesters : Nancy Idell -- 1 Apr 2001 > 5. Casper & Maria Augustin : Barb Peace -- 31 May 2001 > 6. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson -- 28 Nov 2001 > 7. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson-Schlosser -- 28 Feb 2002 > > #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. > > #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. > > #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? > > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 12:32:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, arbit@gmx.at writes: (3) does anybody know an answer to my earlier question re. a testbed board where one can set up dummy threads, try to repair and also destroy them ? There is no such thing as a test board for admins to "practice" on. There really isn't anything to test. 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. Joan

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, will have to check other messages later too, it seems there's more to set up as a thread of it's own... a.. Suhm & Reitzig : Kim Ranger -- 24 Mar 2001 a.. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Lawrence Suhm -- 22 Jan 2002 b.. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Mary Sims -- 5 Sep 2006 a.. Ancesters : Nancy Idell -- 1 Apr 2001 a.. Casper & Maria Augustin : Barb Peace -- 31 May 2001 a.. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson -- 28 Nov 2001 a.. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson-Schlosser -- 28 Feb 2002 2. I seem to recall that there was a board where one can do tests without messing up a public board. Am I wrong (and did only dream it)? If there is one, I could set up a thread and try out moving parts of it TIA Tilman

> > a.. Suhm & Reitzig : Kim Ranger -- 24 Mar 2001 > a.. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Lawrence Suhm -- 22 Jan 2002 > b.. Re: Suhm & Reitzig : Mary Sims -- 5 Sep 2006 > a.. Ancesters : Nancy Idell -- 1 Apr 2001 > a.. Casper & Maria Augustin : Barb Peace -- 31 May 2001 > a.. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson -- 28 Nov 2001 > a.. Re: Austrian Geneology : Kathleen Lawson-Schlosser -- 28 Feb 2002 IMPORTANT: the directions below are ONLY for the end of the thread OR if the posts you'll move are UN-ATTACHED to the "main" (I can't be sure from your post IF these are unattached or not). Usually, posts further down that might move well are "flush-left" under the 1st posting. The flush-left posts might be 20 posts down in the thread. BUT always, always, always double check that what you decide to move will NOT take pieces with it that you did not intend! For example, if you started with a.. Ancesters : Nancy Idell, the move could take all the other 3 with it in the move. ALSO IF there are ANY other posts you did not list that are below these in the thread, then ALL those will "move" along with the ones below. ALWAYS review collapsed view of a thread to visually find where a thread can be broken. A useful tip on LONG threads is to fix all the posts first. Then COPY/PASTE the Collapsed View into Windows Notepad or even a blank email box -- whichever retains the indent/bullets. Then you can put spaces between what you want to break and see IF it would work as you intend. ALSO, you can put something in a couple subject lines *temporarily*, like a capital Z, so you can better "see" the posts you intend to move. Once you are SURE of the effect of your intended move, then delete your capital Z *first* (it's easier now than to hunt for the posts after the move). Then, move the posts. Go to the first Austrian Genealogy (by the way, genealogy does not have 2 o's in it, instead it is ealo.... Anyway, remove the Re: from the first one, save changes. Then, move by typing surnames.name-of-board Repeat steps for Casper and Maria Finally, repeat for Ancestors (Ancestors has an "e" then an "o" instead of e & e) Hope these steps help. Judy

In a message dated 12/4/2006 5:58:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, arbit@gmx.at writes: 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? Tilman- To move part of a thread to a new position on the same board where it is currently posted (i.e. to break up a thread and create a new one) -- click on MOVE MESSAGE and enter the location of the same board in the move to box and click to submit the change. If this is a locality board everything starting with the word "localities." would be copied into the move to box. For surnames, if you moving from the MILLER board to a new thread on the MILLER board you would type in: surnames.miller . Joan

Lauren, That is an excellent idea! Somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain, I thought the subject line should be kept intact. Thanks! Marilyn --------------------------original message---------------------- In a message dated 12/4/2006 2:20:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, listsmonster@gmail.com writes: Marilyn: Actually -- tis better to use the subject line as it is viewable in the recycle bin without opening the post, should STAFF decide to take a peek. I have done this for years and use all caps to distinguish what is my wording and what the subject line was that the poster used. Cheers, Lauren

At 10:53 PM 12/3/2006, you wrote: >Below is not how I'd do it. Instead, I would keep the "root" (the >beginning) of the subject. > >John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County 1880-1915........[query] >re: John and Jane Doe - John Doe (1862-1912) >re: John and Jane Doe - Jane Roe Doe (1865-1915) >re: John and Jane Doe - Mary Doe and John Smith (Note: IF it was clear >these were not related, I'd change it to --- re: John and Jane Doe - my >Mary Doe and John Smith ot >re: John and Jane Doe - are they related to Mary Doe and John Smith >(ASSUMING here that the poster asked the question) >re: John and Jane Doe - Doe family in the local cemetery >re: John and Jane Doe - Mary Doe Smith (1882-1941) >re: John and Jane Doe - John Smith (1869-1931) >re: John and Jane Doe - John Doe owned "Whatsit Company" Judy, Are you saying you change every Subject? Jackie -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/567 - Release Date: 12/4/2006

Below is not how I'd do it. Instead, I would keep the "root" (the beginning) of the subject. John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County 1880-1915........[query] re: John and Jane Doe - John Doe (1862-1912) re: John and Jane Doe - Jane Roe Doe (1865-1915) re: John and Jane Doe - Mary Doe and John Smith (Note: IF it was clear these were not related, I'd change it to --- re: John and Jane Doe - my Mary Doe and John Smith ot re: John and Jane Doe - are they related to Mary Doe and John Smith (ASSUMING here that the poster asked the question) re: John and Jane Doe - Doe family in the local cemetery re: John and Jane Doe - Mary Doe Smith (1882-1941) re: John and Jane Doe - John Smith (1869-1931) re: John and Jane Doe - John Doe owned "Whatsit Company" The assumption is that ALL the posts had to do with John and Jane Doe. IF the thread changed and it was impossible to break it, I might have: John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County 1880-1915........[query] re: John and Jane Doe - John Doe (1862-1912) re: John and Jane Doe - Jane Roe Doe (1865-1915) (note no Re:) John Michael Doe, next door to Whatsit County *re: John and Jane Doe - Mary Doe and John Smith (Note: IF it was clear these were not related, I'd change it to --- re: John and Jane Doe - my Mary Doe and John Smith or re: John and Jane Doe - are they related to Mary Doe and John Smith? (ASSUMING here that the poster asked the question) *re: John and Jane Doe - Doe family in the local cemetery *re: John and Jane Doe - Mary Doe Smith (1882-1941) *re: John and Jane Doe - John Smith (1869-1931) *re: John and Jane Doe - John Doe owned "Whatsit Company" ALL the ones marked with * are fully linked to the first reply, and I've determined it cannot be broken. I think the bottom line here is, everyone has a different "eye" and "feel" for how the subjects within posts change, drift, alter, add in new names, new data, all about the same basic "family". Boards are like making an outline for a term paper. As long as point "a, b, c, d, e" all link to Major Point #1, they create a thread. When "c" alters drastically from Major Point #1, it needs a totaly new subject line without the re: -- or if at all possible, it needs to be moved to its own thread. No, the string below is not how I would do my thread (comment by Judy) > Another example. Query for information on John and Jane Doe has 7 replies > by local volunteers. Your way would be like this with post content in > [brackets]: > --John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County 1880-1915........[query] > --** Re: John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County > 1880-1915........[obituary] > --** Re: John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County > 1880-1915........[obituary] > --** Re: John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County > 1880-1915........[marriage announcement] > --** Re: John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County > 1880-1915........[cemetery listing] > --** Re: John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County > 1880-1915........[obituary] > --** Re: John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County > 1880-1915........[obituary] > --** Re: John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County > 1880-1915........[newspaper article] > > However, the following is more informative to ALL users: > --John and Jane Doe lived in Whatsit County 1880-1915 > --**John Doe (1862-1912) > --**Jane Roe Doe (1865-1915) > --**Mary Doe and John Smith > --**Doe family in the local cemetery > --**Mary Doe Smith (1882-1941) > --**John Smith (1869-1931) > --**John Doe owned "Whatsit Company" > > Some of us are lucky enough to have volunteers who look up MORE than the > original poster asked for (i.e. everything they can find on that family) > and DO change the subject to reflect the content of the post. I would HATE > to see every one of those replies have "Re: The Original Subject". > > Brynne -- ~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

Marilyn: Actually -- tis better to use the subject line as it is viewable in the recycle bin without opening the post, should STAFF decide to take a peek. I have done this for years and use all caps to distinguish what is my wording and what the subject line was that the poster used. Cheers, Lauren

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BF.2ADIAE/5003.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Message Board Post: I was done a day ago when my problems were solved. I answered replies respectfully and completely, and I addressed subsequent issues posed to me. Nothing more. Silence truly is golden.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BF.2ADIAE/5003.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Message Board Post: Whew! You're finally done then, Bree? God, you're windy.