Replies

1. 
   JohnSprung | Apr 05, 2002 04:02am | #1

   Hit "Reply", then click on the down arrow on the right side of the "to" box in the larger upper gray band across the middle of the screen.  It gives you a list of choices to click on, one of which is "all".

   -- J.S.

2. 
   RichBeckman | Apr 05, 2002 04:12am | #2

   Just above the box you type your post into is the line:

   "Type in your message and click"

   Just above that is a line:

   "To: <name>

   followed by a down arrow. Click on the down arrow and a list of people pops down. "All" should be the second entry on the list, click on it.

   At least, that's how it works for me.

   Rich Beckman

1. 
   gwcarpenter | Apr 05, 2002 04:32am | #3

   Rich? It's just you. The rest of us have something that resembles

   a Ross Perot Pie Chart... and it's all downhill from there.

   Though I am partial to the "All Hat, No Cattle" choice.

   Perhaps you need to upgrade?

   -gwc

1. 
   RichBeckman | Apr 05, 2002 05:13am | #5

   "Perhaps you need to upgrade?"

   And if I ever sell a few roofing jobs, I will! But then I'll have to figure out just where the upgrade is needed (computer, van, brain....)!!!

   Rich Beckman

2. 
   Davo304 | Apr 05, 2002 05:08am | #4

   Rich,

   I see the line "Type in your message and click POST"

   Underneath that line is the columns "Paragraph"   "Font"   "Size"   and  "Color"

   There is a down arrow to the right of each of these categories.

   HOWEVER,

   Above the original line "Type in your message and click Post", there are two lines; the top line reading "From Davo"  and the second line down reading "To Rich Beckman"

   Now, just after your name, there is nothing...no down arrow!

   I've tried right clicking on my mouse next to your name and next to the word "To:", but I get nothing.

   HELP!

1. 
   jimblodgett | Apr 05, 2002 05:43am | #6

   Davo - don't you have a button that says "others" right next to the "to: Rich Beckman" line?

   If you do, click on that and look at the top of your screen. I get a box to type in who the message is to.

1. 
   Davo304 | Apr 10, 2002 06:26am | #8

   Hey Jim,

   Andy was right...I wasn't in the ADVANCED MODE...I was stuck in basic. In basic, there was no others box, but now there is. Hip, hip...Hooray!

   Davo

1. 
   Davo304 | Apr 10, 2002 06:29am | #10

   See! I DID IT! Now I know how to post to Y'all!

   Thanks guys!

   Davo.

2. 
   darrel | Apr 10, 2002 09:03am | #11

   And can anyone explain why this is even an option? Aren't ALL posts listed in the thread? I'm just confused with the whole TO: field...

3. 
   BillHartmann | Apr 10, 2002 06:58pm | #12

   There are several reasons for this.

   First when you post a message there down at the bottom there is an option to email there response to the TO: person instead of posting it.

   There is an option in your preferences to have a notice emailed to you when there has been a message posted to you.

   In My Forums it will indicate if new message have been addressed to you so that you can jump directly to them.

   In the upper left there is the Display Message selection. It defaults to only showing unread messages. But you can select for it to show messages address to you.

   Used correctly it can be a very usefull tool. Address to ALL means that is general response to all of the other messages in the thread.

   Addressed to a specific person indicates that you are respond to the comments that that person made.

4. 
   darrel | Apr 10, 2002 07:49pm | #13

   Bill:

   Those are all explanations, but they really have nothing to do with online forums. The point of online forums is that they are conversations in a group setting. Email works for one-to-one discussions, forums work for group discussions.

   And if you are just replying to one person, why deal with the forum? Why couldn't there just be a link on each post saying EMAIL THIS PERSON?

   To be honest, I've never been a member of any online forum community where I had any inclination to have one-to-one conversations in the middle of a public thread. Actually the concept of one-to-one conversation is NOT appropriate to an online forum community.

   I see it is a feature that some developer thought was a great idea but was never actually user tested. It'd be interesting to know how many Prosperos users actually know what the feature is for, how it works, and why it's there vs. those (like me) that see it as just another confusing non-feature.

   But, then again, this is fine homebuilding, not fine user interface design...

5. 
   BillHartmann | Apr 10, 2002 08:05pm | #14

   "To be honest, I've never been a member of any online forum community where I had any inclination to have one-to-one conversations in the middle of a public thread. Actually the concept of one-to-one conversation is NOT appropriate to an online forum community."

   Huh???

   We just had one. That is exactly kind of thing that I was talking about.

   How if I had come back a day from now and look at the message title and did not remember it I might think that this was a thread that I was not interested in and thus skip it. But if I look threads with unread meassages to me I would see it.

   I think that this is a very powerful feature and one that have used on other systems for 20 years and really miss it on forums that don't have it.

6. 
   darrel | Apr 10, 2002 08:23pm | #15

   But Bill, we would have had this exact same one-to-one back and forth discussion on ANY forum software. The TO: field in these messages does nothing to enhance the back and forth, as you, I, anyone can read it in this thread and easily choose to ingnore it if they wish.

   If I'm talking in a thread, then I'm typically interested in the entire thread, just not a few side-conversations. If I feel a conversation is relevant enough, I move it off and start a new thread.

   I suppose this 'to' field feature is an attempt at creating multi-threaded discussions in a single-threaded interface. However, most users will say that mult-threaded discussions are difficult to follow, and I have to agree with that.

   Forums aren't a whole lot different that a discussion at a table. When too many people get around the table, discussions fragment into their own little topics. When that happens, there is no point, really, in trying to keep up with all of the different conversations.

   Multi-threaded discussions are that dinner table. Once too many people get at the table, it becomes difficult for one user to really figure out what is going on as everyone is talking at once.

   A single threaded discussion is the equivalient of everyone around the table being polite and only letting one person talk at a time. The advantage online, of course, is that if the first few words of a persons post aren't relevant to me, I can scroll past it.

   It's interesting how many active threads on the forum right now are discussiong the merits/drawbacks of the interface of prospero vs. discussing fine homebuilding. I think it is a CLEAR fact that the interface on this discussion forum is huge hinderance to the conversations.

   The closer a discussion forum can get to verbal talking, the better, as it enhances the conversation. To do this, you usually need to focus on simplicity in interface. Arguably a much harder task that complexity...anyone can make a complex device...only the truly talented can make a simple one.

7. 
   JohnSprung | Apr 10, 2002 08:40pm | #16

   Darrel --

   I agree, the "To:" box is just unnecessary clutter, yet another dab of mud on the Perspiro termite mound.  I made the mistake of checking "Yes" to e-mail notification on some things, and because most people ignore the "To:" box, I get loads of e-mail notices, which I just delete.  Usually the responses aren't to what I wrote, and should have been changed to "All".

   -- J.S.

   .

2. 
   AndyEngel | Apr 05, 2002 08:56pm | #7

   Are you in Advanced mode? If not, get there. There should be a box at the end of each thread giving you that option. I'm not sure what Basic mode is good for, except not much.Andy Engel, Forum moderator

1. 
   Davo304 | Apr 10, 2002 06:28am | #9

   You were right on Andy. Thanks. I was stuck in basic. or... in other words,

   "BASICALLY, I WAS STUCK!"  Thanks again for solving the mystery!

   Davo