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

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

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

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

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