Dear Sysop (Mark?),
I’ve sent an offline message about this, but I know you’ve got nothing better to do these days, especially with all the Cafe nonsense… :-).
I’d really like to be able to respond to an individual, or post a new message, and have other specific individuals notified as if I’d sent the message directly to them. The only way I can do that today is by using their e-mail addresses, and I rarely know them , even for folks on my friends list. Can Prospero allow the same function using User ID’s? It would make life a lot easier, and I’m sure it would quickly become a widely used feature.
Thanks for considering it,
Mitch
“I’m always humbled by how much I DON’T know…”
Replies
You can certainly send a personal email to any forum participant -- although a very few have refused to accept such emails.
But I assume you know this, and are interested in the capability of sending the same email to several people at the same time. If this is so, I guess my question is, why would you want to do that? Since if I understand you correctly, this would constitute a kind of "private" forum.
Certainly, personal exchanges within a give thread occur around here all the time. And if there is an exchange of information, we all derive the benefit.
Personally, when someone asks me a question via email, I always respond within the thread where the question was generated.
Nikkiwood and Bill,
I obviously haven't communicated this properly, and maybe that's why I haven't received a response from SYSOP yet...
I would like to be able to notify additional people in addition to the addressee (since you can only have one addressee) and still have the message be public. Trouble is, if I want to respond to or notify more than one person regarding my post, I either have to duplicate the post to each of them, or e-mail them in order for them to know that I wanted them to see a specific post.
As an example, I'm sending this message (which is public and available for anyone to see) to Nikkiwood, so Nikkiwood will receive an e-mail notification from Taunton that someone sent him a message; but I want Bill Arnold to see it too. Either I know his e-mail address (even if I do, I have to go to another application to look it up), I send a duplicate message to him, or assume he'll check in again or has subscribed, in which case he'll probably see the message at some point.
Also, just because I can send someone an e-mail by clicking on their profile and then clicking "send e-mail," that doesn't give me that person's e-mail address - it just sends it to them. But that's a secondary consideration. Having to know members' e-mail addresses is both a PITA and a confidentiality issue. But if I use your user ID, I don't need your e-mail address, and I'm a lot more likely to remember someone's user ID anyway.
An alternate method that wuld work just fine would be to be able to address the public message to more than one person.
In a nutshell, there are lots of times when more than one person has chimed in on or expressed interest a subject or specific post, and you have to choose one person to get notified of that subject or post. It would be nice to notify multiple people, in addition to having the post be available for anyone and everyone to see.
I hope that's more clear...
Regards,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
OK I did get your email but with all of the other activities going on I just didn't have a chance to respond. I feel I have a good understanding of what you want but there is one part of your statement that doesn't make sense. Let me see if I can clarify.
<<In a nutshell, there are lots of times when more than one person has chimed in on or expressed interest a subject or specific post, and you have to choose one person to get notified of that subject or post. It would be nice to notify multiple people, in addition to having the post be available for anyone and everyone to see.>>
Just because you pick a specific person to reply to, that does not mean that only that user will see the message, everyone can see the message. It does mean that only the one user you are replying to will get an automatic notification email (if they so choose). As far as being able to address an email to multiple users yes you do need to know that users email address. I will mention your idea to Prospero as I am headed up to see them in the next week or so. Will let you know. Thanks, Mark
SYSOP[email protected]Have you updated your forum profile lately? Please Do!
Mark,
"Just because you pick a specific person to reply to, that does not mean that only that user will see the message, everyone can see the message. It does mean that only the one user you are replying to will get an automatic notification email (if they so choose). As far as being able to address an email to multiple users yes you do need to know that users email address. I will mention your idea to Prospero as I am headed up to see them in the next week or so. Will let you know."
It's that notification part I've been trying to address, and I do understand that even if I don't notify you of a post, you can certainly come across it if you're reading recent thread activity.
Thanks a lot for your willingness to ask Prospero about it. Hopefully, it's an easy action, and if not, no harm done in asking.
Regards,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
>> ... so Nikkiwood will receive an e-mail notification from Taunton ...Maybe. Maybe not. I don't get e-mail notification of posts addressed to me, because that's a configurable option, and I turned it off in my preferences. Also, the last time I checked, the notification doesn't get sent just to the addressee, but to everyone who asked to be notified when any new message is added to a thread.When you see new messages in a thread you've posted to, do you open it? I think nearly everybody does. When you read the new messages, do you skip the ones that aren't addressed to you? I don't think most of us do. I don't have the impression that many readers are overlooking messages of interest for lack of specific notification.Have you considered adding the names of your multiple addressees into the text of a single message? Or in the thread title, if you're starting a new thread? I see that technique used here fairly often, and it seems to be effective.
Dear Ol' Unc,
"Also, the last time I checked, the notification doesn't get sent just to the addressee, but to everyone who asked to be notified when any new message is added to a thread."
If you subscribe to a thread, you will get periodic notice that there's been activity in that thread; but you won't be notified that someone sent a message to you. I didn't know until you said so that you could turn the feature off (makes sense, though), but for those of us who would like to know when someone sends something to us or wants us to know about a specific post, this suggested enhancement would be a great help.
"When you see new messages in a thread you've posted to, do you open it? I think nearly everybody does."
Most of the time I do, but not always - either because I'm busy, or tired of reading the thread (at which point I'll usually unsubscribe), but if someone had sent a specific message notification to me I'd always read it (or have always read it to date, anyway). And do you subscribe to every thread that you read or post to? I assume you don't, for some of the same reasons you turned off the notification feature.
"Have you considered adding the names of your multiple addressees into the text of a single message? Or in the thread title, if you're starting a new thread? I see that technique used here fairly often, and it seems to be effective."
I'm not really sure what you mean by either of those; it would be great if you could post an example.
But I have to ask, Unc - The tone of your post reads more like a challenge (It could be that I'm just more thin-skinned than I think; psoriasis will do that to ya :-)): What's the harm in my suggestion?
Even SYSOP got the gist of what I was doing, which was to suggest an enhancement that many people on the site could benefit by. I'm not complaining, or trying to start an argument. FWIW, I've been trying to add to the functionality of a forum that many of us use frequently, even if we do so in different ways.
Cheers,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
"When you see new messages in a thread you've posted to, do you open it? I think nearly everybody does. When you read the new messages, do you skip the ones that aren't addressed to you? I don't think most of us do. I don't have the impression that many readers are overlooking messages of interest for lack of specific notification."
I'll "subscribe" to numerous threads -- simply because of the general Topic -- in hope of gleaning some info from one of you chaps who's a genuine expert in that "peculiar" area :-)
-- Steve
Enjoy life & do well by it;
http://www.ApacheTrail.com/ww/
"only the one user you are replying to will get an automatic notification email (if they so choose)." Mitch, hope you noticed that sentence. Not everyone chooses the option of receiving an email when a reply is posted to them on Knots. I certainly don't -- my mailbox is busy enough as it is, LOL!
There have been occasions when I wished I could address a post to more than one recipient, so I understand the basic quest here. However, I'll encourage you to have faith in members to keep up with threads most of the time.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Jamie,
'"only the one user you are replying to will get an automatic notification email (if they so choose)." Mitch, hope you noticed that sentence. Not everyone chooses the option of receiving an email when a reply is posted to them on Knots. I certainly don't -- my mailbox is busy enough as it is, LOL!'
As the dearly and recently departed Johhny used to say, "hmmm, I did not know that!" At least I didn't until Uncle Dunc mentioned it.
And I do have faith that members keep up most of the time, as you say. Still, it would be nice to let you know (assuming you hadn't turned off the feature) that I posted something I specifically wanted you to see.
Anyway, that was the thought...Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Mvac,
It would be a great feature, hope they can do it...
BG
"It would be a great feature, hope they can do it..."
Oh my Lord, I think I'm about to have a heart attack. I also think you're the first person who hasn't quibbled with the suggestion. Maybe I did take my meds after all... ;-)
Thanks,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Maybe I did take my meds after all... ;-)
'bout bloody time too...
;P~~
I thought yer idea had wings when I read it last night....Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Hi Mitch, hope you haven't given up on us yet!! Hmmmmm, I'm pretty sure I understand what you're suggesting. Let me agree, with one reservation. I totally agree it would be valuable to be able to address a post to more than one person, using the "To:" box in the composition frame.
My reservation: Since we always have the option to "Reply via email" rather than "Post to the message board," making such a change might be an invitation to abuse of the email functionality at Knots. I'm not trying to quibble but to look at the long-range ramifications. It would only take one rogue member abusing the email function to create havoc and cause a bunch of members to do what Richard has done -- list fake emails for protection.
One solution would be to only permit emails to be sent individually. In other words, if I "Replied" to 3 people in a thread, the program would not allow me to select the email option.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Jamie,
"My reservation: Since we always have the option to "Reply via email" rather than "Post to the message board," making such a change might be an invitation to abuse of the email functionality at Knots. I'm not trying to quibble but to look at the long-range ramifications. It would only take one rogue member abusing the email function to create havoc and cause a bunch of members to do what Richard has done -- list fake emails for protection."
Now you've gone and confused me completely (not that this would be the first time). The change I suggested is in tended to get away from the need to e-mail someone, instead of just letting them know via their user ID that I think there's something they should see. Also, I'm not sure how one could abuse the e-mail function, since when I click "send an e-mail" on your profile, Prospero/Taunton sends the e-mail, and I never see your address. But again, my point is, I don't want to have to know your e-mail address - I just want to be able to put "Forestgirl" in the addressee list or down at the bottom where we can put e-mail addresses, and if you haven't turned off the function, you'll be notified personally. If you choose not to get such notices, you won't be bothered.
Maybe you can give me a better sense of what you mean when you say "abusing the e-mail function," because it sounds like I could do that right now, just by sending lots of messages to people offline by clicking in their profile.
I'm starting to wonder if it was worth suggesting this. My one hope is that Prospero will say "no problem," the feature will be added, people will start using it, and members will see the benefit of being able to notify specific people about a public message so they're likely to see it. We'll see waht happens...
See ya,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
"My one hope is that Prospero will say "no problem...." ROFL!! I love your optimism. sorry.....!
When you write a post, you click on "Post" and the message normally goes to the message board, right? OK, if you look below the Post / Preview / Spell Check.... buttons you'll see where you can select to Reply via email rather than post to the messagae board. OK -- with me still??
To my suspicious mind, being able to post to multiple User IDs would, because of the function described above, make it pretty darned easy for someone to spam a bunch of us at once. An outsider, obviously -- no Knothead would do that, right? Hmmmmm, anyway.
"I'm starting to wonder if it was worth suggesting this." It's always worth suggesting, if you have an idea you think will make the forum better. But rest assured, TPTB (the powers that be) will examine any new idea from a dozen directions to make sure it won't have unintended consequences. And, if you make the suggestion publicly, the rest of us will too, ROFL!! We just have to test your resolve, Mitch. And make our reservations, if any, known. Hang in there now, y'hear?!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
FG,
"To my suspicious mind, being able to post to multiple User IDs would, because of the function described above, make it pretty darned easy for someone to spam a bunch of us at once. An outsider, obviously -- no Knothead would do that, right? Hmmmmm, anyway."
(Picture a man struggling to maintain his resolve...) What's the difference between posting to multiple users via e-mail as opposed to via user ID? Either way, it would still be spam, and the moderators would have that person kicked off the forum faster than you can say "Gee, Mitch, I never thought of it that way!" :-)
As for being optimistic, one can always dream, no?
I appreciate your wanting to ensure that any change is scrutinized sufficiently to ensure it adds value while not adding unintended consequences. I do, think though, that in this case there's a little bit o' paranoia mixed in with the scrutiny. There are certainly some interesting, obnoxious, and even nefarious people who may have chosen to become members. But they could spam you now if they chose to. Once someone has your e-mail address, turning off the "notification" option doesn't protect you. On the other hand, if I added your user ID to the list of additional recipients, and you had turned off notifications, as you currently do, you'd see no difference in what turns up in your mailbox. People can always find a way to be annoying. This suggestion, though, doesn't give members any more ability to inundate you; it just gives you the option of letting someone else besides the person you're responding to be aware of a post that you think might be of interest to them, FWIW.
Cheers,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Hi Mitch, this has turned into a big discussion, eh? I'm responding in this post, but I'm going to make another post to try and straighten out some confusion that seems to be present in the thread.
"What's the difference between posting to multiple users via e-mail as opposed to via user ID?" There's a big difference. First of all, spam by definition, is email, not messages at Knots.
Furthermore, I am in control of when I choose to spend time at Knots and which messages I choose to view when. It's like a closely contained message box that I open when I want to. Occasionally, I will get an email from a Knots member, which I'm more than happy to respond to, but I don't have to worry about Knots being hijacked for the purpose of multiple mailing by someone with a weird agenda. Currently, the mere fact that each individual has to be emailed individually discourages abuse. I would only support the idea of multi-party-responses if the email option of the reply was automatically disabled when more than one person was being responded to.
Any discussion of notification options is moot to me, as I have never used that option. I visit here several times a day so there's no need really. My only concern is about the "Reply via email" function. And at that, I'm not losing sleep over it. They pay Sysop for that, LOL!
"letting someone else besides the person you're responding to be aware of a post that you think might be of interest to them, FWIW." I think this is where your losing people, Mitch. Let's take BG's example above. It's one thing if you want to post a "Thank you" to 3 people who gave great compliments or great advice to you in a thread. It's a totally different thing when you venture into deciding what might interest this user or that user. Most of us like deciding that on our own. forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
"... It's one thing if you want to post a "Thank you" to 3 people who gave great compliments or great advice to you in a thread. It's a totally different thing when you venture into deciding what might interest this user or that user. Most of us like deciding that on our own."
Amen!
Bill Arnold - Custom Woodcrafting Click Here if you're interested in a good,inexpensive website host.
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
Edited 3/19/2005 1:17 pm ET by BArnold
Mitch,
I wasn't going to post a response to this until I thought about it a bit more, so here goes:
During all the time I've been a member of Knots, you are the only one who sent me an e-mail asking me to look at a post you placed. I did and gave you a response. Chances are excellent that I would have seen the post and responded anyway. Members of the Forum are always willing to share their knowledge and experience. That's why we're here.
It is rare that I don't respond to a post if I feel I can add to the discussion. There have been times I've read a thread and felt there was nothing more to say. Sometimes, it's good to 'vote' one way or another if it's a procedure or an equipment purchase question and I do. Just because a particular person doesn't post a response doesn't mean they haven't seen the post; they may not have anything to add.
Another Forum I'm on shows some statistics: the number of responses to a post and the number of views. It's not unusual to see hundreds of views and only a dozen or so responses. The post gets the responses necessary in any case -- just like at Knots.
Regards,
Bill Arnold - Custom Woodcrafting Click Here if you're interested in a good,inexpensive website host.
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
Bill,
"It is rare that I don't respond to a post if I feel I can add to the discussion. There have been times I've read a thread and felt there was nothing more to say. Sometimes, it's good to 'vote' one way or another if it's a procedure or an equipment purchase question and I do. Just because a particular person doesn't post a response doesn't mean they haven't seen the post; they may not have anything to add."
My objective in suggesting this enhancement/feature/whatever-you-call-it isn't to engender more responses - I wouldn't expect everyone I added to say something on a thread just because I made them aware of it. There are lots of occasions where the same subject, or something of tangential relevance, or just food for thought, is discussed along different threads.
And as much as I'd like to read every thread, or even every thread topic, I often don't have the time, so I'll only get to one or two of the five or six that might have been of interest to me. If you'd sent me a notification of a post via my user ID, though, I'd be sure to review the thread - although as with your example, I may/may not choose to post myself.
Just food for thought. As ForestGirl pointed out, my optimism may be unrealistic.
Take care,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
I think the Taunton Press has provided a great vehicle for the exchange of knowledge to all. It works! I wouldn't change a thing!
What happens when you reply to all? Who gets the e-mail then?TDF
Tom,
"What happens when you reply to all? Who gets the e-mail then?"
No one, except those who subscribed, who will get a daily notification of activity on the thread.
See ya,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Rob,
"I think the Taunton Press has provided a great vehicle for the exchange of knowledge to all. It works! I wouldn't change a thing!"
I think they've provided a real treasure for us as well; we are, as they say, in violent agreement on that point. And, if nothing came of this suggestion, nothing about the value we attach to this forum would change. So please know I respect your opinion. That said, change isn't always bad, although it's often initially resisted (Being a management consultant, I can say this with ample experience!) But the world changes, and sometimes the changes are for the better. I'd be interested to see how the new feature was used and received (in terms of acceptance or annoyance) after a "pilot" period of a few weeks.
Anyway, they may not change a thing, and we'd still be glad for having Taunton's forums as a place to congregate, browse, learn and exchange ideas.
Cheers,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
"... I'd be interested to see how the new feature was used and received (in terms of acceptance or annoyance) after a "pilot" period of a few weeks. ..."
Let's say Taunton implemented this change that allowed e-mail notification to a group of folks. I get more than enough e-mail already. If I began to get even more as a result of this change, I'd seriously consider turning off e-mail notification via my profile options. I'm sure others would do the same.
Right now, the system works. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!
Bill Arnold - Custom Woodcrafting Click Here if you're interested in a good,inexpensive website host.
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
Bill,
The situation that MVAC envisions is to respond to messages that have been sent to him. For instance, you post a picture of a 'quilt rack'...it's beautiful and several people send you a message to tell you so. Now, you'd like to respond to each one of those people with a 'thank-you'. Currently, the system requires you create individual posts(messages) on the thread. Would it not be convienent to post the same thank-you to several people at the same time....and cut down on the redundancy.
That is not to say that the feature could not be abused...
BG,
He also wants to be able to send e-mail to one or more people to notify them of a post he has placed. He sent me such an e-mail a while back. We don't need that type of notification. This is a public forum that we all visit when we have an opportunity. There are days I'm on and off here all day long; other times I don't check it for days because of travel or whatever.
Since this is a public forum and people make responses that are public, a 'Thank You' post to 'ALL' should be sufficient. Yes, I enjoy seeing posts that are complimentary and/or critical; either type of post will get a 'thank you' from me. When I respond to a post of a project and submit my comments, I don't expect a personal 'thank you' from the posting member; the general 'thank you' post is more than adequate.
Regards,
Bill Arnold - Custom Woodcrafting Click Here if you're interested in a good,inexpensive website host.
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
There are several places in this thread where there seems to be confusion about the different email options and what's what here at Knots. I'm feeling compelled to make a list!
Reply via email is available when you compose a reply you're posting at Knots. If you select that option, the reply is mailed (through Taunton) to the person you're addressing, and does not appear on the boards.
Email notifications: this option is set under My Preferences (accessed through "My Forums" above). It notifies you of "posts addressed to you."
Email subscription: I'm a little shakey on this one, but I believe it is available for selection after you click Post with a reply -- the little checkbox appears and selecting it provides you with email notification when any new posts appear in a thread. I think it's the one where you can choose how often you are notified (see Mark's respose to nikkiwood above).
Reply via email is the option that would be conceivably subject to abuse were we able to post a reply to multiple user IDs. Changing your Email Notification option would not affect it! The only way I know of to "disable" Reply via email on the receiver's end is to list a fake email address in your profile (see Richard Jones). forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Sheesh...
"Reply via email is available when you compose a reply you're posting at Knots. If you select that option, the reply is mailed (through Taunton) to the person you're addressing, and does not appear on the boards.
Email notifications: this option is set under My Preferences (accessed through "My Forums" above). It notifies you of "posts addressed to you."
Email subscription: I'm a little shakey on this one, but I believe it is available for selection after you click Post with a reply -- the little checkbox appears and selecting it provides you with email notification when any new posts appear in a thread. I think it's the one where you can choose how often you are notified (see Mark's respose to nikkiwood above).
Reply via email is the option that would be conceivably subject to abuse were we able to post a reply to multiple user IDs. Changing your Email Notification option would not affect it! The only way I know of to "disable" Reply via email on the receiver's end is to list a fake email address in your profile (see Richard Jones)."
What I have suggested would have nothing to do with "Reply Via E-Mail," which is where you're concerned about abuse.
It would affect e-mail notifications, which you have the option of turning off anyway, and which I believe you said you had turned off yourself earlier in the thread. As you say, e-mail notifications notifies you of "posts addressed to you." With the option I've suggested, you would be able to "address" the post to multiple people. You would never even see their e-mail addresses, let alone be able to "spam" people. Taunton wouldsimply notify you that a message had been addressed to or flagged for you. And if you've turned off e-mail notifications already, you would see absolutely no change in your inbox.
My sugestion would also have no affect on subscriptions - if you haven't subscribed, you wouldn't reveive any activity notices, and if you had, you'd receive a single notice regardless of how many messages, or how many addressees per message, there were (You would not be notified on days when the thread had no activity).
So again, given your own correct understanding of the different options, it should be clear that what I am suggesting could not result in the e-mail abuse you're concerned of, because it has nothing to do with the "Reply via Email" function. Is that any clearer? And if it is, does it make any difference in your opinion?
I (really) hope that clears things up,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Last time I had a conversation like this, I had some brandy nearby to help me through it, LOL! Please hang with me on this Mitch (and don't get angry at li'l ol' me).
If I'm totally turned around on this, I'll apologize, indeed even grovel, but take the following as an example.
So, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the following, there would be possible implications for the "Reply via email" option.
This is one of those situations where not being able to sit down together at the computer, each of us with a beer maybe, makes it hard to communicate. If nothing else, I hope we survive this conversation still being friends!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Jamie, my darling, wonderfulguide through the Knots world...
Grrrrrr... :-)
"A normally sane, benevolent and productive Knots member is victimized by someone who slips him an Evil Pill. He suddenly is overwhelmed with the desire to make 10 of us miserable by cluttering our email boxes with spam. So, what does he do: He "replies" to a post here at Knots, listing all 10 of us in the Reply To box (because Taunton has magically made this possible to do), but instead of just clicking "Post", he changes the post option to "Reply via email" and then he clicks post. Voila! He has just sent emails to 10 different people at Knots."
This is impossible. How do I know it? I've tried. you can only send e-mail if you choose that option initially. If you try to use user ID's with that option, it doesn't work. And if the User ID feature were added, the only result would be a Taunton e-mail notification (again, which you have the option to turn off).
I'm not sure if your quoting my comment re: addressing the public post to multiple addressees was an endorsement or not, but that would accomplish the same thing.
It is true, I am frustrated by what I see as somewhat fantastical hypotehticals - e.g. - "A normally sane, benevolent and productive Knots member is victimized by someone who slips him an Evil Pill. He suddenly is overwhelmed with the desire to make 10 of us miserable by cluttering our email boxes with spam."
But friends can be frustrated with each other, right? And as a relative newbie on this forum (I may post a lot, but I've only been here a few months), I respect the desire to protect this forum from well-intended but potentially problematic suggestions that you, Bill Arnold and others who have much more time spent on this forum than I have have expressed.
I do think your fears are unfounded, but if you have them, they need to be expressed.
So, to sum up - You're crazy, and don't ever talk to me again! :-)
Your friend,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
I think Jaime is just warning us about "the law of unintended consequences" -- something we should all be aware of if you've spent even a modicum of time watching politicians push their bills into law. I have been reading this thread, and I know what you're after. But you're probably not going to get it, because being able to reply to multiple users is both cumbersome, and probably a hassle for Prospero. The best solution to your problem (personally, I don't see it as a problem), is to simply note the list of folks at the top of your reply -- before going on to say whatever it is you have to say. Granted, they won't receive any official notification of your reply, but you'd be surprised how much people pay attention around here.
Nikkiwood,Please explain the "law of unintended consequences." I have a business associate who had built a consulting practice around helping clients learn from unintended consequences and I'll be using some of this thinking with a client of mine soon...I'm wondering if your idea is basically the same as what I have in mind.Best,
Mark
Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with chalk, cut it with an ax.
Nikkiwood,
I agree with the majority of what you've said, particularly the likelihood that Prospero won't agree to make the change, and the benefit of mentioning multiple people at the top of a post.
Regarding the "Law of Unintended Consequences," while I acknowledge the reality of it, there is also a tendency among humans to resist change - as a management consultant I've seen that phenomenon time and again. "That's the way we've always done it" isn't always such a great reason for standing pat. Sometimes refusing to change leads to stagnation. But I'm drifting off-point a bit.
There's a difference between the Law of Unintended Consequences and the extreme hypothetical situations, bordering on the fantastic, that Jamie, whom I consider a friend, has put forward. And with all due respect to what I hope was a well-intended analogy, I'm not a politician, and I'm not trying to slam home something that benefits me at the expense of others, or misrepresenting either the change itself or my true intent; I found the comparison offensive.
Still, you're comments re: Prospero and alternatives to getting to where I'd like us to be are helpful in aligning my expectations.
Regards,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
<<"And with all due respect to what I hope was a well-intended analogy, I'm not a politician, and I'm not trying to slam home something that benefits me at the expense of others, or misrepresenting either the change itself or my true intent; I found the comparison offensive.">>I would say you have a strange kind of sensibility about stuff, and I am having my problems plugging into your wave length. For my part, I will say that I believe the future belongs to those who can embrace change and adapt to it. But at the same time, I would argue that it is prudent to utilize caution, restraint, and contemplation when considering a change. Too often, I think, some argue for change for the sake of change, without due consideration for the potential consequences. In the political arena, and especially at the state and local level, we often see politicians proposing some new legislation in response to some current event. The law passes, then five years later a whole stream of complications flow from that law, because in their haste to add the law to the system, no one gave sufficient consideration to all the potential “unintended consequences” that might flow from it.I am not a management consultant, but I too have had the opportunity to study the concept of change as it applies to corporate cultures. “We’ve always done it that way” is no defense for a stagnant, inefficient system, but I do think it is wise to give serious consideration to “why” they have always done it that way –-- before you proceed to turn things upside down. I think Jaime was quite rightly spinning out the "what ifs" And it would seem, in your zeal to see the legislation pass, you are too dismissive of "the extreme hypothetical situations, bordering on the fantastic" which she is trying to point out. Let me also say, that not much of what I have said applies to the issue at hand –- which is really a small potatoes matter. I never commented on your intent (in fact I didn’t even think about). And I am puzzled why you would be offended by my mention of politics as an example of where “unintended consequences” are often a problem with legislation that starts out with the best of intentions and motives.
Nikkiwood,
I'm glad to say that I agree with the majority of what you've said. But I still think the hypothetical of some otherwise sane, law-abiding and well-intended person being slipped a mickey, so to speak, and spamming us all, is more a fantasy than a realistic possibility. There's a difference between a rigorous, fact-based and indeed hypothesis-driven analysis of a proposal, and presenting chicken little scenarios (sorry, Jamie) as the basis for suggesting a proposed change is potentially dangerous or damaging.
As to my having taken offense - Maybe you didn't mean it that way. But both of us know that it is the rare politician who makes decisions based solely on the good of his or her constituents, or who hasn't done a number of things in the course of their official duties that would humiliate them, or worse, if they became public. In a nutshell, most politicians are rather sleazy - at any level. And what I proposed doesn't come close to "legislation." This is an option that members can choose to avail themselves of or not. That said, your most recent post makes more clear to me what your intended point was, so consider me no longer offended. :-)
I do wish the scrutiny of my suggested change wasn't so filled with suspicion for my motives, as some of the posts have suggested. I obviously couldn't profit from this in any material way, and believe it or not my comments were well-thought-out before I raised the issue. Finally, we have moderators on the forum for a reason, one of them being the disposition of unintended consequences. I think it wouldn't hurt to have faith that maybe, just maybe, this could be a good thing.
Trust me on this - I'd much rather spend time talking about woodworking.
Regards,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Well, we clearly don't hold the same opinion of politicians -- at least when it comes to most legislative proposals. Most of these, I think, are driven by an honest and sincere, but often naive desire to do some good. The problem is, they are too often not very well thought through (hence the unintended consequences thing).As far as sleaze is concerned, I think most of that stuff is surreptitiously appended to such proposals in an effort to bury the measure from scrutiny. I don't get your statement about everybody impugning your motives. that never even crossed my mind, since I assumed you were merely making an honest suggestion that would, what should we say, improve the Knots experience for yourself. I'm OK with that.But I'm also okay with coming to Jaime's defense, when I felt you were too dismissive of her efforts to explore some of the potential consequences of such a change. Finally, I would rather be frittering my time away writing about this kind of stuff than wwing. I will be able to think all I want about wwing tomorrow. Many of us need a break now and then, and that's why I have been arguing all over these threads for the continued existence of the Cafe.
"This is impossible. How do I know it? I've tried. you can only send e-mail if you choose that option initially. If you try to use user ID's with that option, it doesn't work. And if the User ID feature were added, the only result would be a Taunton e-mail notification (again, which you have the option to turn off)." Hmmm, this is where we're talking a cross-purposes, methinks. Wish we could sit down at a computer together. I have sent, over the years mind you, 3 or 4 dozen emails to Knots members by selecting "Reply via email" after I've typed my message here in the composition box. I believe you do, however, have to select a recipient from the list in the "To:" drop-down box. You can't type in some other name that's not on the list.
What I'm referring to has absolutely nothing to do with "e-mail notification"
Even if you have the above function "turned off" you would still get a reply that was sent using the option "Reply via email." This confusion is exactly why I posted that list in message #34.
OK, hopefully that's cleared up. So, please believe me I would love to be able to reply to more than one person at a time. I'm not trying to ward off change here in a fit of anxiety and fear <grin>. I'm presenting information on a technical element that would open up the biggest Pandora's box of the internet -- Spam. My example (the guy with the Evil Pill) was simply meant to be funny, not to be taken literally. The most likely abuse would be people trying to sell things, notify us of eBay auctions (as if we don't know eBay is there!) or, possibly, someone who goes off the deep end in a vigorous discussion and wants to hit us with his (or her) POV en masse.
This technical trap could be taken care of! Prospero would have to make the "Reply by email" option unavailable when posting a reply to more than one member. Whether or not they're willing to go to that extra step is unknown.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Jamie,
First, let me say how relieved I am that you're still on "speaking" terms with me.
Second, I believe and always have believed that you are completely sincere in your efforts to maintain a great high-quality community.
That said, I think we have two disagreements about how the notification options work, one of which could be fundamental to our disagreement. Let's take the easy one first.
"I have sent...emails to Knots members by selecting "Reply via email"... I believe you do, however, have to select a recipient from the list in the "To:" drop-down box. You can't type in some other name that's not on the list."
Not true, my sexy woodworking buddy - Here's the text above the box that let's you send e-mails of your message to others - "Want to e-mail someone a copy of this post? (optional)Enter up to 10 addresses (e.g. [email protected]). Separate multiple addresses with commas." This option is useful for sending, and may have come about as the result of wanting to send, e-mail to non-member individuals. Of course, messages can also be sent this way to registered members. I could send a copy of this message to my wife, who's always asking how much time I spend on this site and why. :-)
"Even if you have (e-mail notification) "turned off" you would still get a reply that was sent using the option "Reply via email." ...This technical trap could be taken care of! Prospero would have to make the "Reply by email" option unavailable when posting a reply to more than one member."
Jamie, Jamie, Jamie...You are absolutely, 100%...Right. My original suggestion was to use the User ID's in the "e-mail a copy" box. That would in fact, assuming all else is unchanged, lead to sending a message copy to you via e-mail (Not a good thing). And it never occurred to me that this would be the case.
Later in this thread, I said adding multiple User ID's to the addressee list would be just as good (or however I phrased it), but in fact this method would ensure that you were only notified if you wanted to be, and even then by Taunton, telling you a message had been addressed to you.
So, first, mea culpa - Your close scrutiny has in fact highlighted a serious flaw in what I originally suggested to Sysop/Mark. Second, adding multiple addressees would accomplish what I'd wanted to accomplish in the first place while, I think, addressing your concerns about potential e-mail abuse. I have to tip my hat to you for sticking with it until my unusually thick cranium (not to be confused with an unusually large brain, as we can see) allowed the logic to seep through.
A Question - If we agree (and I'm speaking of you and I, since getting everyone to agree on this forum is much more difficult than herding cats...), what's the best way to communicate the "right" change to Mark/Sysop/Cyclops/He Who Must Be Obeyed or whatever they call him? I guess we could just reply to one of the messages he's left on this thread. And, if you agree, would you be willing to send it? Since you're one of the most, if not the most, well-known members (God knows you post often enough) on the forum, your endorsement - if you're willing to make it - would give a much higher comfort level to both the moderators and the members who've been here a lot longer than I have and are suspicious (apparently with some cause) of a newbie who's been posting for just a few months. P.S. - If this smacks too much of my asking you to do my dirty work, I'll happily send it myself.
Also, to everyone else who saw this problem before me and objected because of it, I hope you'll accept my apologies - my intent was good, although my ignorance of how the system works led to a flawed initial suggestion (Say, that smacks of something I heard recently, like maybe the Law of Unintended Consequences...?).
What say you, as I eat my large portion of humble pie? (See signature below.)
Hopefully still your buddy,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Mitch,
Wow! How do you have any time to spend making sawdust when you pontificate on this issue incessantly?
Regards,
Bill Arnold - Custom Woodcrafting Click Here if you're interested in a good,inexpensive website host.
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
Boy, aren't I glad my email address here is faked up so that no-one can send me stuff off-forum easily and directly. I'd hate it if a quarter of the drivel in this thread turned up in my email. I'd be hitting the delete key faster than a bunny on the job.
Anyway, don't off-topic threads like this belong in the secret funny handshake message board, ha, ha---- ha, ha, ha? Slainte.RJFurniture
"Boy, aren't I glad my email address here is faked up so that no-one can send me stuff off-forum easily and directly. I'd hate it if a quarter of the drivel in this thread turned up in my email. I'd be hitting the delete key faster than a bunny on the job.
Anyway, don't off-topic threads like this belong in the secret funny handshake message board, ha, ha---- ha, ha, ha?"
Hi Richard,
Very well put! I haven't wasted my time reading every word in this thread. I DO have a real life! It amazes me when someone will spend so much time dwelling on a subject when it's obvious the outcome will probably be a lot of folks blocking e-mail from him.
I'm not sure why this thread didn't make it to the dungeon ...er,ah...Cafe... with the rest of them, but so be it. I just hope all of the 'secret society' folks are having a good time taking up bandwidth that could be used for woodworking discussions.
Regards,
Bill Arnold - Custom Woodcrafting Click Here if you're interested in a good,inexpensive website host.
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
Bill,
"It amazes me when someone will spend so much time dwelling on a subject when it's obvious the outcome will probably be a lot of folks blocking e-mail from him."
I showed you the respect of responding to you and expressing my disappointment to your last post offline last night. Apparently you didn't feel the need to reciprocate
For the record, whether you like it or not, whether you think so or not, and whether you think the idea has merit or just plain stinks (No need to ask you, of course), I made the suggestion because I thought it could add to the already high value of this forum.
But as you don't like the idea, and saw me continue to defend it, your posts have become increasingly more derogatory. You say I'm "pontificating," or "dwelling on a subject (with an obvious negative outcome)." As if I had some negative agenda having nothing to do with trying to make the place better.
As if I had nothing better to do with my time than sit here defending slings and arrows from people who I thought were more respectful than that. And when I admitted to ForestGirl that I'd erred in my original suggestion - I guess those were some of the words you chose not to read - you called it "pontificating." I call it being enough of an adult to take responsibility. Try it some time - it's a bit tougher than slamming someone.
Do me a favor, will you? You've said that you scan a lot of messages/threads and don't respond to most of them. You've also already made crystal clear what your opinion is of my suggestion. Great. We'll see what happens in the highly unlikely even Prospero and the moderators agree to make the change.
But if you have nothing more constructive to say, why don't you just say nothing, rather than impugn the motives of someone whose intent was to try to do some good? Or do you just speak kindly to those whose opinions you strongly agree with? Like it or not, your negative comments have hurtful consequences, and I have to admit to feeling hurt by someone for whom I had developed great respect.
With great disappointment and regards,Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Bill, that was totally uncalled for. Yes, this thread has gone on a bit more than we might have expected at the beginning, but it's simply because it was difficult to communicate in writing about what Mitch is trying to suggest and others' reservations about it. I admire him for not going off in a huff when things got kinda confused. What's got you being so damned judgmental about what he does with his time? If this topic bores you, then click the Ignore option and go about your business.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
"If this topic bores you, then click the Ignore option and go about your business."
Hmmm, Forestgirl, I wonder whether there are any other issues that concept might be applied to. . .
Yo, (as we say in Philadelphia), mvac, stop whining! You made a suggestion. Some people didn't like your suggestion and said so. That's it. No one insulted your mother. If you're going to feel "hurt" by this kind of dialogue then believe me, you're not going to get much useful information from Knots. I'm not being disrespectful toward you, just honest.
This is not a Cub Scout troop with a den mother and, to tell you the truth, many of us rather like it that way.
Edited 3/22/2005 7:06 pm ET by MARKRODERICK
M.R. -- Mitch and I are working through the details of some confusion about the idea he presented. We're actually having a pretty good time, believe it or not, because we're both invested in working through this comedy of errors, trying to understand each other.
"This is not a Cub Scout troop with a den mother" Well, you're certainly acting like one with that "quit whining" nonsense.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)Another proud member of the "I Rocked With ToolDoc Club" .... :>)
Well. it's clear that we need to shut down the general discussion and have everyone apply for it given this type of rancor. Sysop, sign me up!TDF
And all this time I thought Knots was a forum for discussing woodworking, not legalities and technical details that have nothing to do with working with wood!
Mabe someone shoud start a chat room!
Rob
Mitch, even if you clicked on my Knots user name and sent an email to me via the Taunton service, it wouldn't arrive here.
The email address I used to get access to this forum many years ago was false then, and it still is, ha, ha.
I've always rather discouraged off-forum contact via such means. Slainte.RJFurniture
Slainte,
"The email address I used to get access to this forum many years ago was false then, and it still is, ha, ha. "
Ah, you're a sly one...
"I've always rather discouraged off-forum contact via such means."
Am I just living in my own little world (rhetorical question - please do not answer)? What I've suggested isn't "off-forum" at all - It's the opposite. It enables me to notify you (If you want to be notified of such things) of a post that might have some specific interest to you without having to go offline to tell you about it.
I feel like I've done a poor job of explaining what I've asked the moderators for, and/or why it might make sense, which is probably the case.
I, for one, like to know when people have sent something to me, or have indicated that they want me to look at something they posted. But maybe I'm in the minority...
So, I'm just going to go back to reading stuff about Woodworking, which is what I was trying enhance in the first place, and forget about the rest of you Bozos! Just wait until I take my medication...
TTFN (Ta Ta For Now),Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Well Mitch, I think I now understand the function you're after.
I think it's possible when I post to a thread to click on a button somewhere that should allow me to be notified via my posted email address that there's been a response to my post. If I'm correct then what you want to do is possible, but it would depend on the recipient being willing to receive such notification.
I've never used the function as described and, as I said before, my email address lodged with Taunton I'm pretty sure was false way back in '98 or '99 when I joined. Since then I've moved country and changed my ISP, email address, etc., and I'm pretty sure I never updated and Taunton still have my old faked up address.
Maybe I'll try emailing myself by clicking on my response here to see what happens. Slainte.RJFurniture
"Well Mitch, I think I now understand the function you're after."
OK, now you're just teasin' me... :-)Mitch
"I'm always humbled by how much I DON'T know..."
Sgian,
"Maybe I'll try emailing myself by clicking on my response here and see what happens"
It can get boring living on the lamb....lol.
Mitch,
You can send a personal message to an individual by clicking on their username and choosing the 'Send E-Mail' option. You sent me a note in this manner a couple of weeks ago. But, I agree with Nikki that most responses should post in the Forum for the benefit of the groups.
Regards,
Bill Arnold - Custom Woodcrafting
Click Here if you're interested in a good,inexpensive website host.
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled