brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/22/84)
I have noted recently some people talking about actual work on writing new news software. I've been too busy to get the names, but would those involved with the work please get in touch with me. If you're just going to redo the existing system, instead of designing a new one (I have the design for a new one based on a keyword system which I would like to interest you in) I strongly suggest you eliminate the "Re:" feature in followup. The subject line is the most important line in the article, and it should never be machine generated. As far as many people on the net are concerned, an article with a bad subject is a waste of net time. I NEVER read an "orphaned response" or much beyond the first few "Re:" articles, and I know others are like this too. The Subject: header should in fact be deleted and changed to "Synopsis". In either case, it should be multi-lined as often as possible. I would even suggest that the software check, and not allow a subject which is shorter than 30 chars or is the same as the subject of the article being followed up. If you have something worth saying, it is worth summarizing. Some may object that the software should not impinge so on the freedom of netters to write what subject they want. I say the reverse. An article is posted once, and possibly read thousands of times. Any extra effort at the time of posting that helps the reader is worth enforcing. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (06/25/84)
There is already a framework in place for followups, and getting rid of the Re: feature is not part of it. People who are tired of reading about socks in hyperspace appreciate the fact that the subjects are the same, since they can 'n' all the messages with the same subject. A new header line called "Summary" exists (or at least there are stubs in 2.11 for it) - after the text of a followup has been typed in, the user should be prompted for a summary of what the user has contributed to the discussion and that will be put into the Summary header, which is shown to users reading the followup. While the "References" line is there to help group subtopics, it isn't enough; there are too many bottlenecks that lose things like references. Grouping messages with the same subject together is an important part of this sorting. Even then, people often enter new messages with new subjects and the software can't tell. Mark Horton
jlh@loral.UUCP (Jim Harkins) (06/28/84)
HOLD IT!!!!! This guy is suggesting we get rid of the re: feature of readnews. I don't know about him, but instead of deleting this feature I'd rather see it expanded. A neat thing to be able to do would be to say 'Don't show me any re: Wallys world is wunnerful articles' because after 2-3 followup articles I never read any more anyway. I hope whomever is rewriting readnews leaves it in. Also, he wants a synopsis to be at least 30 characters long. WHY??? It seems to me that the purpose of a synopsis is to be concise, why punish those who are good at it?? Jim The opinions expressed herein are entirely my own and therefor worthless.