Yahoo Groups - disaster/averted

[snow15145]

I was screaming at my husband last night that my pc was 
malfunctioning somehow due to his networking system, which he assured 
me was a new format from Yahoo. I couldn't possibly fathom such a 
severe change in format without notice and assured him that it was 
the pc or his network, which of course I had to admit the inevitable 
that is Yahoo.

To what advantage is this new format? None that I can comprehend, at 
least at the moment, especially concidering cateloguing. 

Snow-- Perplexed

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" 
<spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Carolyn:
>  I freely admit I have just spent a couple of hours absolutely 
> fuming with rage. I agree it is a stupid approach, but at least it 
> works for now. 
> 
> Dot:
> Actually, I find fuming with rage to be rather a sensible approach 
> on occasion.  I just sent this to Yahoo feedback (typos and all in 
> my furious haste), which was rather therapeutic:
> 
> Ye Gods, the workings of the Yahoo mind defy logic. The web-access 
> interface was never easy to use, but now that you've done away with 
> displaying the message numbers next to the subject heading it's 
> blisteringly painful to find anything in a group's archives. 
> 
> The deplorable inadequacies of the Yahoo 'search feature' are 
> legend, of course. But now you've even succeeded in making it 
*more* 
> difficult for those of us who go to the lengths of keeping a 
written 
> record of post numbers of interest. We have to fiddle around with 
> the URL to get where we want to go, and we can't tell whereabouts 
in 
> the archives we are unless we open a message and check the message 
> number in the URL. And now clicking `next' (a function which is now 
> delightfully well-hidden at the bottom of the page) takes you to 
the 
> previously numbered message, and clicking `previous' takes you to 
> the next numbered message.  Where are your 
> brains? 'Counterintuitive' doesn't go quite far enough - 'bloody 
> idiotic' is a far better description.
> 
> I cannot stress enough how appallingly dreadful I find the new 
> format, and (though I never *ever* thought I'd see myself typing 
> this) how delighted I would be to return to the old system.