cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (02/11/90)
I think that it would be better if the various threads in the article selection menu were presented in chronological order instead of alphabetical. "psuedo followups" are common occurrences, but once you alphabetize the menu the implicit ordering gets all messed up. It is very hard to do this 'right', but some kind of simple chronological ordering would come a lot closer than alphabetical order does... /Bernie\
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/12/90)
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: |I think that it would be better if the various threads in the article |selection menu were presented in chronological order instead of |alphabetical. "psuedo followups" are common occurrences, but once you |alphabetize the menu the implicit ordering gets all messed up. I agree. I'd kind of like everything within a thread to be in chronological order. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) (02/13/90)
In article <14113@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >|I think that it would be better if the various threads in the article >|selection menu were presented in chronological order instead of >|alphabetical. "psuedo followups" are common occurrences, but once you >|alphabetize the menu the implicit ordering gets all messed up. > >I agree. I'd kind of like everything within a thread to be in chronological >order. While I'll grant that chronological sorting is a VERY nice idea, too many machines out there: 1) Fail to keep their clock time correct. or, 2) Use weird time formats and/or zone names. By far, #1 is the problem seen most often. I suppose the question is whether or not, in the real world, chronological sorting would cause more or fewer problems. What I would really like to see is sorting according to the References: entries. The problem with that stems from the propagation failures that occur within the network, where the reply shows up before the original article does. Since not everyone is using NN, it's not likely to be fixed anytime soon. I suspect that the only way to fix it would involve a centralized network authority. Something that the UUCP network (UseNet) people (that's me!) won't put up with. [ All kowtow to the Great Anarchy! :-) :-) :-) ] "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare. | NetExpress, Inc. ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM | Vienna, VA 22182
davison@drivax.UUCP (Wayne Davison) (02/13/90)
cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) wrote: } I think that it would be better if the various threads in the article } selection menu were presented in chronological order instead of } alphabetical. "psuedo followups" are common occurrences, but once you } alphabetize the menu the implicit ordering gets all messed up. I agree completely. That's why I patched nn to not only group the common subjects together, but to also arrange the subjects in date order of their first article. This sorting works quite well, and I sent Kim the patch to implement it last October or so. Kim -- is my sort algorithm available in nn v6.4 [a.k.a. 6.3.12]? -- Wayne Davison \ /| / /| \/ /| /(_) davison@drivax.UUCP (_)/ |/ /\| / / |/ \ ...!amdahl!drivax!davison
storm@texas.dk (Kim F. Storm) (02/13/90)
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >I think that it would be better if the various threads in the article >selection menu were presented in chronological order instead of >alphabetical. This will be the default sorting method in 6.4 (aka 6.3.12) thanks to fixes provided by Wayne Davison. The following orderings will be available: subject Subject thread order (default) lexical Subject lexical order (6.3 method) sender Sender lexical order, and in "date" order for each sender. date Posting date (and time) arrival Receive date (actually article numbers) -- Kim F. Storm storm@texas.dk Tel +45 429 174 00 Texas Instruments, Marielundvej 46E, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark No news is good news, but nn is better!