links back to original message

[scubaman]

Since all threading is lost offline, how about hyperlinking the message number back to the original on yahoo?  So you can e.g. do a search offline, then jump to yahoo to follow a thread.

Rich

[phazei]

Great idea.

Another spin off, while it wouldn't be perfect, is to have the program auto search the next 100-200 messages for "Re: <original subject>" and have that pop up on a side window.

[Wilson Logan]

If you sort by subject you get better threading than Yahoo offers as only messages which are replied to online are threaded.

Best thing is to sort by subject then select the entire thread, right click & choose 'Show selection as Digest'.

Cheers,

Wilson.

[scubaman]

... as only messages which are replied to online are threaded.

You've said that before, and I don't believe it is true at all.  It depends on how your email client formats the header maybe.  99% of the time I use courier email.  When I look at a post of mine, I can go to the parent, and I do see responses (of course the responses have nothing to do with my post, or do they?).  E.g. look at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/penturners/message/44728 .  It was made using my Courier email client.  It is threaded.

The 'by thread' view appears not to work too well.  I don't know it there is a timespan limitation or what, and I don't use that all that much, but I find 'up thread' very useful, as well as the responses listed below a message.

I just went and created a msg in a test group using Courier.  When it came back, I replied using courier.  It is properly threaded on yahoo!  I made another offline response to the response, and everyhting show properly threade.  I believe the same is true for the common outlook express, but I have no idea how universal this is.

Rich

[Wilson Logan]

Rich,

OK, OK, I'm talking crap. I just assumed because Oulook doesn't thread (OK, *I've* not noticed it threading) that all email clients don't thread. I accept that this isn't the case.

However.... PGO still does just as good a job at keeping a thread together as Yahoo e.g.

http://www.pgoffline.com/images/threading-1.jpg

http://www.pgoffline.com/images/threading-2.jpg

Slightly better in fact. PGO's messages are at least in the correct order.

What could be better is the addition of 'up thread', 'down thread' buttons. PGO knows what all the members of a thread are so I guess this will be possible.

Cheers,

Wilson.

[scubaman]

What could be better is the addition of 'up thread', 'down thread' buttons. PGO knows what all the members of a thread are so I guess this will be possible.

That would be good!  It'll integrate nicely with what you have announced for the next release - navigational buttons previous/next

Down thread would be a lttle tricky because while Up thread is unique, Down thread is not because there may be MANY responses.  So it'd pretty much have to have the responses listed like yahoo.

Rich

[Wilson Logan]

I think in this case 'down thread' would have to mean previous message in date/time sequence.

Cheers,

Wilson.

[scubaman]

Yeah, I guess threading in the pgoffline sense is not real threading, just a grouping by subject, and in time sequence.  Different ways to skin that cat :-)

Rich

[Wilson Logan]

I'd prefer real threading too but we can only work with what we have. The solution in PGO is a compromise but I think its the best possible one, if thats any consolation :)

[scubaman]

I understand.

But, is it really impossible?  When you view a msg online, you see at the bottom of each if it has been replied to.  Couldn't you on principle reconstruct exactly the same threading table (or however this info is kept) that yahoo has?  Naturally, what's broken there could not be reconstructed locally.  You may still say there's not enough bang for the buck - I'm just trying to understand the difficulties vs. the impossibilities

Rich

[Wilson Logan]

Rich,

I've run a little test on a test group I have. Its called LiveInterface.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LiveInterface/

There's only 23 messages in the group. You can look at them, as the group archive is public.

Now... I have created some new messages. 18, 19 & 20 are replies to 15. 21 is a reply to 20, 22 is a reply to 21 & 23 is a reply to 22.

If you look in Yahoo, the threading in 18, 19 & 20 only relates to 15, unlike those in 21, 22 & 23 which relate to each other sequentially.
The former simulates how people really post. When people reply to messages they reply to the original but they also read the other replies. If Yahoo was really threaded, each message that is a reply to 15 would be one after the other in sequence like 21,22,33 but thats not how it works.

If you sort these messages with PGO it gets them in the right order.

Now... the transition from 22 to 23 is the most interesting. Yahoo can relate two unrelated subject lines together if one is a reply to the other. PGO cannot do that.

I'm thinking that we could have a hybrid solution where PGO's method takes preference where the subjects are the same but Yahoo's method takes preference when the subjects differ.

So, for each message, PGO would have 2 new database fields... say 'forward' and 'back'. Each field carries the next or previous message number for that thread. PGO sets up these fields from Subject & Date unless Yahoo indicates that it should be linking to a dissimilar Subject.  

Thoughts?

Wilson.

[scubaman]

hope you don't mind I joined this group.  That way I don't hav eto set up my own test group, nor mess up my other groups  ;)

Rich

[scubaman]

You're absolutely right, I hadn't noticed...  it's not properly threaded, since replies to replies do show up as replies...
:-[
Rich

[Wilson Logan]

Ah, ye of little faith !  

But seriously... I have been know to make the ocassional gaff so its good that someones checking my logic :)

Cheers,

Wilson.

[scubaman]

So a proper threading table could be constructed if one looked up the tree for each msg.  That'd be really painful.  The down links, since they show up on the msg screen, would be much easier, but apparently are not usable...  Oh well, so much for that  ;)
Rich