Mute
dep/Dodo
Zack (Doc)
e-mails, as a new post comes in the e-mail thread will move back to
your inbox with each new message. Even if you label and archive it,
each new mail brings it back to the inbox.
Mute works like a filter to auto-archive that particular conversation;
keeping it from returning to the inbox. New messages will still come
in, but it will remain archived, and only show up under the labels you
applied.
Elihu
Dodo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dodo
"thread." Gmail Help says "Gmail groups all replies with their
original message, creating a single conversation or thread." That
sounds like "thread" is synonymous with "conversation." However, I
thought the "conversation" was the whole, compiled of the original
message AND its replies (each then being "threads" to the entire
"conversation"). I bring this up to better understand your statement
and "thread" are synonymous, and I had it wrong.
Zack (Doc)
you are correct, but in some cases this differentiation breaks down
and allows them to be equal.
Given: the scenario where a single reply results in further replies to
that same reply continuing in serial. In this case there is but a
single thread to this conversation, so they are one in the same.
Given: the scenario where two replies are made to an original message
in parallel each resulting in further replies in serial. In this case
there are two threads to this conversation, the issue becomes
recognizing this. In a tree hierarchy, such as Google Groups is
capable of presenting, and some readers (programs for reading groups)
can, it is obvious. In GMail this is indistinguishable from the above
scenario, which puts us back into the situation where they are
interchangeably used.
Given that this group deals primarily with GMail and it's uses and
users, it's appropriate to use it interchangeably with differentiating
between the semantical differences between them.
Dodo
> Given: the scenario where two replies are made to an original message
> in parallel each resulting in further replies in serial. In this case
> there are two threads to this conversation, the issue becomes
> recognizing this. In a tree hierarchy, such as Google Groups is
> capable of presenting, and some readers (programs for reading groups)
> can, it is obvious. In GMail this is indistinguishable from the above
> scenario, which puts us back into the situation where they are
> interchangeably used.
and you and Elihu responded. One conversation, two responsive
threads, which fits what I thought a "conversation" meant. The first
scenario you cited seems to differ from the foregoing only in that
there was one response which then led to others (rather than two
responses leading to others). That's too fine a distinction for me.
Now, do I dare inquire as to the "tree hierarchy"?
Zack (Doc)
http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Users/browse_frm/thread/2bce95610dac5b94?
and by default it's a tree hierarchy. The left pane should show the
different threads (branches) by virtue of indentation. The posts
aren't in date/posting order, but it's very clear which post was in
response to which post.
View this same conversation with this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Users/browse_frm/thread/2bce95610dac5b94?scoring=d&
and it's in pure date order. The indentation is gone, and posts are
out of order in relation to the post they're responding to. This is
exactly like it's displayed within GMail, so that's why thread and
conversation become interchangeable.
Andrew Ingraham
know what criteria Gmail uses to determine when messages are in the same
conversation.
Does it use the Subject?
Or the "Message-ID" and/or "References" lines in the header, which are
usually not displayed?
Presumably, newsgroups and Googlegroups make use of the Message-ID or
References lines; otherwise there would be no way to construct the tree
hierarchy from the Subject alone.
Some email clients that download with POP or IMAP and manage the mail on
your PC, also can display messages in thread format, but I usually prefer a
chronological view so that's what I mostly use.
Grouping based on the Message-ID or Reference info can occasionally have
unintended consequences. If someone starts a new conversation by replying
to an old message and giving it a new Subject line, it carries the old
conversation's Message-ID and Reference lines. In a fully threaded view,
the new message ends up in the previous thread and might go unnoticed. This
could be a reason to use the Subject line instead, as the criterion for
grouping messages into conversations.
So I just wondered what Gmail does.
Andy
Dodo
that's what you meant by the "tree hierarchy" but this clinches it.
And to make absolutely certain I get the concept, would you agree: #1
begins the conversation to which #2-6 respond and #7 begins another
branch to which #8 responds?
As always, Zack, thank you for your patience and willingness to take
the time to explain.
On Mar 7, 3:53 am, "Zack (Doc)" <z...@tnan.net> wrote:
> View this very conversation via the web interface with this link:http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Users/browse_frm/thread/2bce9561...
> and by default it's a tree hierarchy. The left pane should show the
> different threads (branches) by virtue of indentation. The posts
> aren't in date/posting order, but it's very clear which post was in
> response to which post.
>
> and it's in pure date order. The indentation is gone, and posts are
> out of order in relation to the post they're responding to. This is
> exactly like it's displayed within GMail, so that's why thread and
> conversation become interchangeable.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Dodo <DEPfah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 6:31 pm, "Zack (Doc)" <z...@tnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > Given: the scenario where two replies are made to an original message
> > > in parallel each resulting in further replies in serial. In this case
> > > there are two threads to this conversation, the issue becomes
> > > recognizing this. In a tree hierarchy, such as Google Groups is
> > > capable of presenting, and some readers (programs for reading groups)
> > > can, it is obvious. In GMail this is indistinguishable from the above
> > > scenario, which puts us back into the situation where they are
> > > interchangeably used.
>
> > That seems to be the situation here: I posted the original message,
> > and you and Elihu responded. One conversation, two responsive
> > threads, which fits what I thought a "conversation" meant. The first
> > scenario you cited seems to differ from the foregoing only in that
> > there was one response which then led to others (rather than two
> > responses leading to others). That's too fine a distinction for me.
>
Dodo
responds to the previous post except for Elihu's, which apparently
goes back and responds to my post #1!
On Mar 7, 3:53 am, "Zack (Doc)" <z...@tnan.net> wrote:
> View this very conversation via the web interface with this link:http://groups.google.com/group/Gmail-Users/browse_frm/thread/2bce9561...
> and by default it's a tree hierarchy. The left pane should show the
> different threads (branches) by virtue of indentation. The posts
> aren't in date/posting order, but it's very clear which post was in
> response to which post.
>
> and it's in pure date order. The indentation is gone, and posts are
> out of order in relation to the post they're responding to. This is
> exactly like it's displayed within GMail, so that's why thread and
> conversation become interchangeable.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Dodo <DEPfah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 6:31 pm, "Zack (Doc)" <z...@tnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > Given: the scenario where two replies are made to an original message
> > > in parallel each resulting in further replies in serial. In this case
> > > there are two threads to this conversation, the issue becomes
> > > recognizing this. In a tree hierarchy, such as Google Groups is
> > > capable of presenting, and some readers (programs for reading groups)
> > > can, it is obvious. In GMail this is indistinguishable from the above
> > > scenario, which puts us back into the situation where they are
> > > interchangeably used.
>
> > That seems to be the situation here: I posted the original message,
> > and you and Elihu responded. One conversation, two responsive
> > threads, which fits what I thought a "conversation" meant. The first
> > scenario you cited seems to differ from the foregoing only in that
> > there was one response which then led to others (rather than two
> > responses leading to others). That's too fine a distinction for me.
>
Zack (Doc)
for RE and FW. This is actually in 100% agreement with how Microsoft
Outlook (but not Outlook Express) does it.
Zack (Doc)
Dodo
provided that contained 8 posts: How many conversations? How many
threads? (Recall the topic began as Mute, then I veered it to threads
vs. conversations without changing the subject line on March 6 @ 5:20
p.m.). And on the non-indented, pure date order list?
Finally, I am viewing this conversation (conversations?) via the web
interface, and it doesn't show the left pane of replies and post
dates. Is this because I am using the older version here at work?
Zack (Doc)
No, it's because that's one of two ways Google Groups has of
displaying messages; "Standard view" and "View as tree"
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=75420&topic=9245
Dodo
home computer, must have made my decision (tree), and forgotten about
it. At work, I don't know if it happened today or I just noticed
today that I didn't have the tree view. Thank you for that quick fix,
Zack.
On Mar 7, 8:18 pm, "Zack (Doc)" <z...@tnan.net> wrote:
> One conversation, many threads.
>
> No, it's because that's one of two ways Google Groups has of
> displaying messages; "Standard view" and "View as tree"http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=75420&topic=9245
>