This is a GREAT reason to gateway messages. The poster would need a better reason to have the message removed from the list archives I would think. Thus the info remains available to researchers! Rel@ively, Patrice At 7/22/2006 12:49 PM, lklein@mindspring.com wrote: >Tribehunter@aol.com wrote: >>I'd have to disagree with this to a point. I had a post that went on for >>3 lines, <snip> > >Yeah, I think if practically the entire message has been used as the >subject line, I would reduce the subject line a little. That does >help catch the eye, plus helps keep that and subsequent responses >from falling off the edge of our screens. ;-) > > >Someone mentioned deleting posts. As for contacting the poster, I >hope the changes in the boards will do something to help us with >that. I've had one poster request 50+ posts of hers to be deleted >at a time, and she's done this several times (170 - 200 deletions) >in the past couple of weeks. I suspect she thinks her answers are >either taking up too much space or they're outdated. I've tried >writing to her, but she has so far refused to answer my several >e-mails. I know I have to respect her request and have deleted her >posts, but it's a shame that others on the boards will suffer >because they won't have a chance to see the posts she's had removed. >It would be nice if we had a way to put an objection on hold, pending >a response from the objector, or if an auto-generated response could >go out whenever someone requests a post be deleted. Something like >"As the author of the post, your request to have your own post >deleted will of course be honored, but . . . " followed with an >explanation of why they might like to reconsider. > >Lynne

LOL... The "J" lady has also made a similar request for removal of one of her posts from 2004 for having the subject line changed. Post does not look familiar to me at all, nor does the subject line look uninformative. IF I changed the subject line at all, it would have been nearly 2 yrs ago. The post is toast. Cheers, Lauren

In a message dated 7/22/2006 3:25:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, lklein@mindspring.com writes: (quoting me) <<>LOL--that was emphasis--not shouting. I'd never shout at my fellow admins. >What would my Quaker ancestors Patience and Silence think of me? <g> > I don't know, but I'm glad I don't have that to live up to! I'm certainly the antithesis of patience and generally not very silent. ;-) >> Well, me too--but I have the WorldConnect file to prove it: Patience HAINES: http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=joan_m_young&id=I0186 Silence WILLITS: http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=joan_m_young&id=I0028 And even a Prudence for good measure: http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=joan_m_young&id=I0116 <<One requirement I would like to see made of posters to a locality board would be to include locality in the subject line. Adding the "Where" is probably the most frequent edit I make to a subject line. When someone posts to an old thread (invariably to a message with a subject like "help me find my ancestors" <eyeroll>), it takes me forever to go back to the original post to make sure it really belonged on that locality list. And it's a 50/50 chance that the post actually did belong there. >> This is another case where I'll sometimes add the locality in the subject if the poster omitted it -- but mainly when I know from reading the message body that the post IS relevant to the board locality. For instance, if someone mentions Callowhill St. on the Philadelphia, PA, board and he didn't mention Philly. I know that Callowhill St. IS in Philly and might add that clarification to the subject--without actually changing any content of the rest of the subject. Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 3:37:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, jurnie1999@gmail.com writes: I've actually had many thank me for doing it. Many havent It doesn't matter whether someone thanks you or not--it simply is WAY beyond the scope of our admin duties. Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 3:51:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, carolyne_cwy@yahoo.ca writes: No, no, no, (IMHO). There was nothing wrong with the original subject line. The changes you made also made it impossible for someone to do a search of subject lines with the term "John q. Public." The new subject line as you changed it eliminates the find. I agree with Lynn. I would be very unhappy if you changed my subject lines for what appears to be no reason. Is the board in question a locality board? If it is, and it is the state of Kansas, or a county in Kansas, then the addition of the KS is also unnecessary. Now, if the subject line had said John m Joanna, that would be a different story. Carolyne ---- Carolyne's comments above are pretty much what I'd also have said on this subject...but not exactly for the same reasons. Repeat the mantra: always err on the side of the author! It isn't our job to just switch subjects around to fit a mold or pattern we like as admins or to correct spelling errrors or any of the other hundreds of reasons I've seen admins list for changing a poster's subject lines. However, the search capabilities of the boards are not such that they permit phrase (in quotes) searches so searching on "John Q Public" isn't really possible on the current boards and so far as I know won't be possible in the future although searches will be vastly improved. On the boards if you search on John Public you will get hits on any posts with John and Public in the message--anywhere and in any order. It is just very disconcerting for an author to have HIS chosen words changed in any way at all--so please please have a very good reason for changing something. It could make a poster feel as if you are looking down at him and criticizing his choice of words and formatting and we are not here to belittle the board posters--the boards are really THEIRS and not ours. Our job is merely to make them stay on track. Joan

Janet Kruger wrote: > > BUT thats the thing it was the chosen subject wasnt changed, I > continued on > with what the previous admin did. > > If the posts were John q. Public married Joanna Kostachowsk in > Smithville > 1918 Just about perfect, IMHO > > Made it Public, Johnq -m- Kostachowski, Joanna - 1918 smithville, KS Ack! Janet, are you saying that you edit the subject line so that it reads surname first, then first name? If you did that to one of my posts, I'd hunt you down! Maybe that's why the previous admin no longer has that board. > > > and if its an Obit. OBIT: Public, John, > or Biography. BIO: Public, John Q > Cemetery CEM: Public, John q > > I have seen this done on many boards other the Rootsweb and it helps > elimate unwanted looks and easier searching. It wasnt that anything was > deleted. Unless it was in the post already. And you add "OBIT" or "BIO" in all caps at the beginning of the subject line? That's unnecessary -- that's what the classifications are for -- plus it's very distracting from the subject itself. I beg you to stop. Lynne

JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: ><<Now, now, no shouting. <vbg> >> > >LOL--that was emphasis--not shouting. I'd never shout at my fellow admins. >What would my Quaker ancestors Patience and Silence think of me? <g> > I don't know, but I'm glad I don't have that to live up to! I'm certainly the antithesis of patience and generally not very silent. ;-) >In my opinon the subject should almost never be changed--but when a poster >enters a subject such as "genealogy" "searching" or "looking" or something of >that nature, it can be very helpful to add something such as: Searching -- >for Mary Smith in Gloucester County, NJ in 1850. I'm must more in favor of >just adding a bit to a poster's unclear or too general subject than I am for >changing it completely or shortening it. > Okay, I think we're in the same ball park. :-) One requirement I would like to see made of posters to a locality board would be to include locality in the subject line. Adding the "Where" is probably the most frequent edit I make to a subject line. When someone posts to an old thread (invariably to a message with a subject like "help me find my ancestors" <eyeroll>), it takes me forever to go back to the original post to make sure it really belonged on that locality list. And it's a 50/50 chance that the post actually did belong there. <Beginning of rant> And speaking of that, does anyone actually check if an admin is doing a good job? I'm constantly amazed by what I see in old posts on my own and other boards. <end of rant> Lynne

At 2:10 PM -0500 7/22/06, Janet Kruger wrote: >If the posts were John q. Public married Joanna Kostachowsk in Smithville >1918 >Made it Public, Johnq -m- Kostachowski, Joanna - 1918 smithville, KS No, no, no, (IMHO). There was nothing wrong with the original subject line. The changes you made also made it impossible for someone to do a search of subject lines with the term "John q. Public." The new subject line as you changed it eliminates the find. I agree with Lynn. I would be very unhappy if you changed my subject lines for what appears to be no reason. Is the board in question a locality board? If it is, and it is the state of Kansas, or a county in Kansas, then the addition of the KS is also unnecessary. Now, if the subject line had said John m Joanna, that would be a different story. Carolyne

I've actually had many thank me for doing it. Many havent On 7/22/06, lklein@mindspring.com <lklein@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Janet Kruger wrote: > > > > > BUT thats the thing it was the chosen subject wasnt changed, I > > continued on > > with what the previous admin did. > > > > If the posts were John q. Public married Joanna Kostachowsk in > > Smithville > > 1918 > > > Just about perfect, IMHO > > > > > Made it Public, Johnq -m- Kostachowski, Joanna - 1918 smithville, KS > > > Ack! Janet, are you saying that you edit the subject line so that it > reads surname first, then first name? If you did that to one of my > posts, I'd hunt you down! Maybe that's why the previous admin no > longer has that board. > > I dont see anything wrong with it its neat and Ive seen it done on may > boards. But Ill guess Ill Mess up the boards again. If you think its > ackward. I knew the admin she couldnt handle it anymore cause of personal > problems. > > > And you add "OBIT" or "BIO" in all caps at the beginning of the subject > line? That's unnecessary -- that's what the classifications are for -- > plus it's very distracting from the subject itself. > > I dont see how its distracting. Ive had MANY on almost all the boards > email me to say thank you and that it helps they dont have to go through > each and everyone.

> > > So this gives you the right to fix the classification and > the surnames...but > not the right to change the author's chosen subject. BUT thats the thing it was the chosen subject wasnt changed, I continued on with what the previous admin did. If the posts were John q. Public married Joanna Kostachowsk in Smithville 1918 Made it Public, Johnq -m- Kostachowski, Joanna - 1918 smithville, KS and if its an Obit. OBIT: Public, John, or Biography. BIO: Public, John Q Cemetery CEM: Public, John q I have seen this done on many boards other the Rootsweb and it helps elimate unwanted looks and easier searching. It wasnt that anything was deleted. Unless it was in the post already. But you all helped. Thanks J.KRuger

In a message dated 7/22/2006 1:52:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, lklein@mindspring.com writes: <<Now, now, no shouting. <vbg> >> LOL--that was emphasis--not shouting. I'd never shout at my fellow admins. What would my Quaker ancestors Patience and Silence think of me? <g> <<Joan, remind us (yes, again!) of when and why we should consider editing in the subject line. >> In my opinon the subject should almost never be changed--but when a poster enters a subject such as "genealogy" "searching" or "looking" or something of that nature, it can be very helpful to add something such as: Searching -- for Mary Smith in Gloucester County, NJ in 1850. I'm must more in favor of just adding a bit to a poster's unclear or too general subject than I am for changing it completely or shortening it. <<I fervently pray that the subject line with be shortened on the new boards. Now if there was only a way to force them to include the who, what, where, and when. ;-) >> I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 characters (which is about what it is now) and I'm not condoning long subjects--the briefer and more to the point the better BUT I'm just saying they are pretty much the author's choice. I guess my point is that if the powers that be overseeing the board development wanted to limit subjects to a shorter limit--they'd have done so. So the subject as long as it is not something that just doesn't fit the post -- is pretty much the poster's choice. We can't make all posts perfect nor should we try to. Always err on the side of the author--that can't be repeated often enough. ESPECIALLY (emphasizing again) if the author disagrees with a change we've made to his posts. One situation where I can see changing the subject is where a part of a thread that doesn't fit the original is being broken off and moved to a new thread--it might be a good thing to also "adjust" the subject lines to fit the thread rather than just carry over what was automatically picked up in the replies. Joan

JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: >Tribehunter@aol.com writes: > >Aren't we supposed to simplify the subject line, up to a point, so that >it's >more eye-catching? > > > >No--we are NOT...the author has the final say. > Now, now, no shouting. <vbg> Joan, remind us (yes, again!) of when and why we should consider editing in the subject line. >There is a pre-set limit to the number of characters that can be included in a subject--after that the >author cannot type in any more text--and THAT is the length limit--not >something the admin decides it should be. > I fervently pray that the subject line with be shortened on the new boards. Now if there was only a way to force them to include the who, what, where, and when. ;-) Lynne

----- Original Message ----- From: <lklein@mindspring.com> To: <BOARDS-ADMINS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [BAd] Help Question > Janet Kruger wrote: > > Made it Public, Johnq -m- Kostachowski, Joanna - 1918 smithville, KS > > > Ack! Janet, are you saying that you edit the subject line so that it > reads surname first, then first name? If you did that to one of my > posts, I'd hunt you down! Maybe that's why the previous admin no > longer has that board. > > > and if its an Obit. OBIT: Public, John, > > or Biography. BIO: Public, John Q > > Cemetery CEM: Public, John q > > > > I have seen this done on many boards other the Rootsweb and it helps > > elimate unwanted looks and easier searching. It wasnt that anything was > > deleted. Unless it was in the post already. > > And you add "OBIT" or "BIO" in all caps at the beginning of the subject > line? That's unnecessary -- that's what the classifications are for -- > plus it's very distracting from the subject itself. > > I beg you to stop. > > Lynne AMEN and AMEN. In fact, I do exactly the opposite - I arrange all names in forename>surname order and remove extra words from the subject line that are covered by the categories. Sharyn

In a message dated 7/22/2006 12:38:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, bpjohnston@charter.net writes: I always work in DATE collapsed mode when working with the boards, so I don't think it's that. What I'm wondering about is the totally different addresses for the link in My Notifications vs. the address when the message finally appeared on the board. Could this have something to do with the new boards we hear are coming? ----------- Beth I can't duplicate the problem. I went to your board and selected date colapsed and saw this: Re: Patrick McGrath m Alice Cullen in Jersey City NJ, looking for Boston Relatives : Katherine Dineen -- 20 Jul 2006 Re: Andrew McGrath : Jim Prow -- 18 Jul 2006 Re: Bernard, James, Sam McGrath : bernie D'Arcy -- 14 Jul 2006 The top post in date colapsed order is the one you received the notice for dated July 20th. Perhaps you are viewing a cached page? In any case, nothing you are seeing on the current boards have anything to do with changes that may be coming--when those changes arrive they will let us know and the boards will look entirely different than the current ones. Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 11:22:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, lklein@mindspring.com writes: It would be nice if we had a way to put an objection on hold, pending a response from the objector, or if an auto-generated response could go out whenever someone requests a post be deleted. Yeah--I do that--contact the poster to see if they really want the posts removed or if there might be something we can help with..and it would be nice to have a means of deferring/diarying the objection while also letting staff know we didn't ignore it. Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 12:14:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, bpjohnston@charter.net writes: It has now shown up with this address: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=message&r=rw&p=surnames.mcgrath&m=925.1. What's going on? Beth- The new post is a REPLY to a previously existing thread and therefore is archiving attached to the old post on the board. You will only see it up top if you view in DATE mode rather than THREAD. Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 10:25:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, Tribehunter@aol.com writes: Aren't we supposed to simplify the subject line, up to a point, so that it's more eye-catching? No--we are NOT...the author has the final say. There is a pre-set limit to the number of characters that can be included in a subject--after that the author cannot type in any more text--and THAT is the length limit--not something the admin decides it should be. Joan

In a message dated 7/22/2006 10:19:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, jurnie1999@gmail.com writes: I maybe the only one that thinks this but if the information is in the Post. theres no need for it to be in the subject. He posts were only changed cause she didnt add the classifications or surnams. Its all silly So this gives you the right to fix the classification and the surnames...but not the right to change the author's chosen subject. It simply is NOT our call to be second guessing the choice of the author's words. I really fear that over-use of the ability to edit subjects in cases other than where the author just says "looking" or "searching" is going to lead to this capability being taken out of the hands of admins--frankly, I am beginning to think admins can't be trusted with changing subjects. We once could edit the message body of posts on our boards and misuse by admins is the very reason we lost that capability. Joan

Tribehunter@aol.com wrote: >I'd have to disagree with this to a point. I had a post that went on for >3 lines, <snip> > Yeah, I think if practically the entire message has been used as the subject line, I would reduce the subject line a little. That does help catch the eye, plus helps keep that and subsequent responses from falling off the edge of our screens. ;-) Someone mentioned deleting posts. As for contacting the poster, I hope the changes in the boards will do something to help us with that. I've had one poster request 50+ posts of hers to be deleted at a time, and she's done this several times (170 - 200 deletions) in the past couple of weeks. I suspect she thinks her answers are either taking up too much space or they're outdated. I've tried writing to her, but she has so far refused to answer my several e-mails. I know I have to respect her request and have deleted her posts, but it's a shame that others on the boards will suffer because they won't have a chance to see the posts she's had removed. It would be nice if we had a way to put an objection on hold, pending a response from the objector, or if an auto-generated response could go out whenever someone requests a post be deleted. Something like "As the author of the post, your request to have your own post deleted will of course be honored, but . . . " followed with an explanation of why they might like to reconsider. Lynne

Marilyn, I do, but you will get disagreements here on that subject. Particularly when the subject line is so long and is also repeated in the message body. The same applies to entering numerous surnames in the surname field with no regard to the fact they do not appear in the message body either. David E. Cann decann@infionline.net davidecann@gmail.com (alternate) -----Original Message----- From: Tribehunter@aol.com [mailto:Tribehunter@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:14 AM To: BOARDS-ADMINS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BAd] Help Question I'd have to disagree with this to a point. I had a post that went on for 3 lines, something like this: SUBJECT: John Smith, born 1845 in SC,married Jane Doe born 1850 in SC, moved to NC in 1868, VA 1880, KY 1882 with 5 children; their son James is my g-g-grandfather b. 1875 NC Then in the body of the message they repeated all of the exact SAME data from the subject line and then listed the names and birthplaces and dates of the 5 children, along with "Looking for anyone else searching this line." The subject line was too cumbersome so I changed it to: John SMITH b. 1845 SC; wife Jane DOE b. 1850 SC Aren't we supposed to simplify the subject line, up to a point, so that it's more eye-catching? Marilyn ---------------original message--------------- In a message dated 7/22/2006 9:53:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, JYoung6180@aol.com writes: An admin should be very very careful about changing subject lines. Especially in a case like this where you are implying that the subject line WAS explanatory in relation to the text of the message.