authfriend wrote: >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>authfriend wrote: >> >> ><snip> > > >>>I'm not a programmer, but I've been participating >>>in electronic forums, via BBSs, email, newsgroups, >>>and on the Web for over 20 years, and I've never >>>heard the term "thread hijacking" except from >>>you. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. >>> >>> >>> >>Here's more on the subject: >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_Hijacking >> >> > >But this isn't how you've defined it. You're >all upset about the title changes, but Wikipedia's >definition doesn't even mention title changes: > > > Subject line = title. And besides I'm not all upset, I just mentioned it in passing but mentioning sure got a bunch with their panties in a knot. :)
>"Thread hijacking is the act of taking a forum discussion thread off >topic by discussing a subject entirely unrelated to the subject at >hand. > >"While this can be an intentional act of trolling, it is often >accidental - caused by other participants in the discussion >responding to a throwaway remark, taking the thread off at a tangent >to the original subject matter. The results, whilst often humourous, >often extract a feeling of resentment from the author of the post." > >This is something people have done as long as I've >been participating in electronic forums, and I've >never seen anyone express resentment. It isn't even >"accidental" per se (and in my experience it's rarely >trolling). > >In any case, the two paragraphs are contradictory. It's >one thing to go off on a tangent, and quite another to >introduce "a subject entirely unrelated to the subject >at hand." > >Now, notice what follows; changing the thread title >is discussed as a special case: > >"Many people find that they are scolded on a list or newsgroup for >thread hijacking despite the fact that they changed the subject line, >which would seem to them to create a new thread. Most news and mail >readers use other headers such as References: to track and build the >thread of messages by message ID, and changing the subject line does >not change the actual threading." > >So you're wrong to suggest that this only happens >on Yahoo; as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's >standard. > >"Therefore, one should always compose a new (and therefore reference- >free) message when changing topics. Alternatively one can start a new >thread for the new topic and link to the previous thread." > >And how does one "link to the previous thread"? Maybe >that was possible on old Usenet, although I never saw >it mentioned and have no idea how it would have been >done. > >In any case, I still think the "tree" structure is a >good one in many cases. It works very well on Google, >but Yahoo's new implementation of it is impenetrable >(and its "Up thread" option simply doesn't work at all). > > > >Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_hijacking"; > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
