You don't need to be your own grandma: Threading Google Groups

In another, pointless, bickering thread current on the group, it
becomes clear that some people are ignorant of the fact that Google
Groups offers threading for those who know how to switch it on.

RTFM, fellers! But, just in case you can't find the "Help" files
either, here are neddy instructions:

Open a "discussion" from the Google Group's root menu which appears
when you open the app to read the posts, click on "Options" very near
the top of the page (in a grey bar, probably), select "View as a tree"
--- and you will see a threaded tree at the left.

You can make the lefthand bar wider by putting the cursor in the white
space between the two panels, clicking and dragging.

****
Google's implementation of threading is not the best but the kind of
people who have trouble discovering that Google Groups offers
threading probably won't be able to manage a dedicated newsreader any
better.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly

On Apr 2, 8:59*am, Andre Jute wrote:

Google's implementation of threading is not the best but the kind of
people who have trouble discovering that Google Groups offers
threading probably won't be able to manage a dedicated newsreader any
better.

That is my biggest gripe with GG - that the threading is half-assed.
It can be very difficult in a long discussion to figure out which
branch belongs to which posts.

E.P.

On Apr 2, 7:32*pm, wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:59*am, Andre Jute wrote:



Google's implementation of threading is not the best but the kind of
people who have trouble discovering that Google Groups offers
threading probably won't be able to manage a dedicated newsreader any
better.

That is my biggest gripe with GG - that the threading is half-assed.
It can be very difficult in a long discussion to figure out which
branch belongs to which posts.

E.P.

I use MacSoup, which has a very useful threading presentation, much
like a critical path, as a newsreader, mark all the posts I want to
reply to, and with a single click isolate only those I want to reply
to in Google Groups. GG itself I keep in the chronological unthreaded
state, and apply what it does best by going to the bottom of any
thread I want to post to, and then scrolling up, which is quick since
the posts I want are usually among the most recent. It can be hell
though if you want to comment on an old post; easier to find it by
searching on some phrase. The only advantage GG has is that my proxy
allocator is designed to work well with it, or I'd use MacSoup for
replies as well as reading.

MacSoup is super for killfiling clowns and marking threads and
subthreads I'm interested in, and selecting various groupings of
threads that interest me at any one time. It is overkill for a small
conference like RAT, say, but makes a busy group like RBT easy to
follow, and MacSoup or something like it would be essential for a
really big group if one isn't to get lost in the fluff and flames.

****
Here's my original with instructions for threading Google Groups:

In another, pointless, bickering thread current on the group, it
becomes clear that some people are ignorant of the fact that Google
Groups offers threading for those who know how to switch it on.

RTFM, fellers! But, just in case you can't find the "Help" files
either, here are neddy instructions:

Open a "discussion" from the Google Group's root menu which appears
when you open the app to read the posts, click on "Options" very near
the top of the page (in a grey bar, probably), select "View as a tree"
--- and you will see a threaded tree at the left.

You can make the lefthand bar wider by putting the cursor in the white
space between the two panels, clicking and dragging.

****
Google's implementation of threading is not the best but the kind of
people who have trouble discovering that Google Groups offers
threading probably won't be able to manage a dedicated newsreader any
better.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating the undeserving by merely
existing elegantly

wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:59 am, Andre Jute wrote:

Google's implementation of threading is not the best but the kind of
people who have trouble discovering that Google Groups offers
threading probably won't be able to manage a dedicated newsreader any
better.

That is my biggest gripe with GG - that the threading is half-assed.
It can be very difficult in a long discussion to figure out which
branch belongs to which posts.

Bingo. If there are free alternatives like Motzarella available, why put up
with GG? (I had the additional issue of not being able to log on -- some
weird "script bug endless loop" thing just kept running until I back-paged.)

Only advantage I saw was I spent much less time on it. Quick look for
anything new that seemed of interest, and off. Threaded show all new
posts/replies and makes 'em easy to find.

On Apr 2, 9:27*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:59 am, Andre Jute wrote:

Google's implementation of threading is not the best but the kind of
people who have trouble discovering that Google Groups offers
threading probably won't be able to manage a dedicated newsreader any
better.

That is my biggest gripe with GG - that the threading is half-assed.
It can be very difficult in a long discussion to figure out which
branch belongs to which posts.

Bingo. *If there are free alternatives like Motzarella available, why put up
with GG? *(I had the additional issue of not being able to log on -- some
weird "script bug endless loop" thing just kept running until I back-paged.)

Only advantage I saw was I spent much less time on it. *Quick look for
anything new that seemed of interest, and off. *Threaded show all new
posts/replies and makes 'em easy to find.

You're missing the point, Bill. My instructions for threading Google
Groups aren't aimed at people like you and "E.P." who can clearly
manage another newsreader/poster if you want to, but at people who
can't or don't want to or for some reason or another are forced to use
Google Groups. That said, I saw that loopy script bug a few times too;
most irritating. -- Andre Jute