[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder

[susiequsie23]

Random832:
> It's only 'not that clear' if you don't know how it works. How it
> works is: EVERY SINGLE line with N ">" marks in front of it was
> written by the person identified in the attribution line with N-1 such
> marks. It couldn't be simpler. I don't see how it is in any way the
> _least_ bit unclear.

SSSusan/Shorty:
Not every e-mail client puts in the chevrons [the >>> symbols].  Depending 
upon how one receives messages (individual emails or digest) or not (i.e., 
one uses webview) and the type of email program utilized, the way that 
things appear when the member hits "Reply" varies.  Believe me, this is one 
of the things I've learned by doing pending messages.

Some members also use a software program to compose their posts (Word or 
Notepad or such), because they want to take their time to compose it or 
because they are combining responses to *several* posters at once and find 
it easiest to organize in such a program or for any number of reasons.  When 
they then copy this into an e-mail or into the message box via webview, 
those chevrons don't necessarily line up or appear at all.

Additionally, for those who combine responses within a thread (something we 
encourage), the number of chevrons idea does not work.  Here's an example.

If you hit "Reply" to a post where Bob and Dave have been talking, Yahoo 
generates an attribution for the *two* posters at the top (aka, a nested 
attribution), and it puts the DOUBLE-chevrons Random is talking about in 
front of the oldest quote and SINGLE chevrons in front of the newer quote. 
It looks like this:

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bob <bob at y...> wrote:
>--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave <dave at ...> wrote:

> > but how many times has Harry fantasized about torturing Snape?

> Has anyone gone back and counted the times Harry wanted to torture Snape?
> Just wondering.

I find it harder to follow, but it fits what Random is saying, and it works 
okay when it's one or two members being quoted.  (However, for over two 
quotes, it's a MESS and we ask members not to utilize this nested 
attribution.)

Now, to my example of a place where it doesn't work... if Bob wants to 
respond to Dave *and* to Mary *and* to Debbie, who've all been posting in a 
thread he's interested in, he may elect to combine responses to snippets of 
each of those members' posts, even if they are three separate posts.  Thus, 
he can't rely upon chevrons to indicate levels of quotes; he has to do 
something to help readers know whose words are whose.  It will have to look 
like this:

Mary wrote:
> blah blah blah

Bob:
Hmmm.  I'm not sure, Mary.

Dave wrote:
> yadda yadda yadda

Bob:
I think you and Mary are both a little off-base with this theory....

Debbie wrote:
> higgeldy-piggeldy pop

Bob:
Now, I think *that's* the ticket, Debbie....

In this example, those chevrons probably wouldn't be there automatically, 
and while we love it when a poster inserts them to help identify a quote, 
it's also not required that they do so (they simply have to do *something* 
to indicate it's quoted material).  Either way, you simply can't rely upon 
automatically-generated chevrons to do the work of identifying levels of 
quoted material.  Typed-in attributions are going to have to happen.

Of course this doesn't happen all the time, but it sure happens a lot. 
Since we do have a daily posting limit, many members do try to combine 
responses so that they can "save" their posts and not use them up responding 
to 3 separate individuals in the same thread.


Random832:
> You'll notice that I have been including self-attributions/etc even while 
> arguing against them - more carefully, even, here than in most of my
> posts.

Siriusly Snapey Susan/Shorty, who does very much appreciate how clear 
Random's posts to HP-Feedback and Main have been when attributions have been 
included