Inbox and Outbox

[Forfarian]

I find it extremely irritating that personal messages are segregated into 'Outbox' for messages sent to me and 'Inbox' for messages I have sent. It makes it extremely difficult to follow a particular thread of private correspondence, because you have to keep jumping from inbox to outbox and back again, and you cannot read the whole thread together as you can in the Forum.

I have suggested, via 'Contact Support', that the Inbox and Outbox should be amalgamated, with individual messages clearly labelled 'Sent' or 'Received' or 'Out' and 'In' as appropriate.

The Webmaster doesn't agree with me, but suggested posting this as a topic to see which of us others agree with. So here it is.

[Gadget]

Hi Forfarian 

I see your problem but I think it would make PMs very messy to amalgamate them. I tend to delete my sent messages (outbox) more often than my incoming messages (inbox).  Also, it's not really in the spirit of Rootschat to discuss FH by PM unless the people named are alive or you are swapping e-mail addresses.

A way around your problem might be for you and your correspondents to quote the message that they are responding to - in this way, you would have a record in one box.  Alternatively, could you not keep a running record in a separate text file on your computer.

Regards

brevitas

[roopat]

I definitely agree with you. I know it's not the same as emails but if I reply to emails I expect to be able to follow the whole 'conversation' between me and the correspondent. Maybe it's technically too difficult to do it on RC.
Maybe they should have a poll - it seems to have got the old smilies back and this is probably a more practical idea.

Pat

[Forfarian]

Hi Forfarian 

I see your problem but I think it would make PMs very messy to amalgamate them. I tend to delete my sent messages (outbox) more often than my incoming messages (inbox). 

Also, it's not really in the spirit of Rootschat to discuss FH by PM unless the people named are alive or you are swapping e-mail addresses.

You are making assumptions about what I am discussing in PMs. I would never initiate such a discussion by PM for the reason you state, but if someone chooses to contact me by PM to discuss FH, I would not dream of copying to the whole forum any response I might make to them.

A way around your problem might be for you and your correspondents to quote the message that they are responding to - in this way, you would have a record in one box.

Nice idea, but totally impractical.

Alternatively, could you not keep a running record in a separate text file on your computer.

I could, but it would be even more of a faff to do that than jumping back and fore between inbox and outbox. Moreover, since almost all such discussions relate to other people's FH, I don't really have any use for the information once the correspondence has gone cold.

[tidybooks]

Hi Forfarian et all,

I would like to point out 2 small icons on the "inbox" which you may not have noticed.
One is a "speech bubble with lines in"  immediately before the email, meaning an item has been read. There is also another " speech bubble with lines in, with a green arrow pointing left" means has been read and has been replied to. Clicking on the message with this icon, opens up to a page which gives received message and sent message on same page, whis is what you wanted.

These help keep an eye on the ones I have to reply to.

Tom

[Gadget]

. Moreover, since almost all such discussions relate to other people's FH, I don't really have any use for the information once the correspondence has gone cold.

I was told by a Mod when I first joined that discussing FH by PM was not in the spirit of Rootschat, as I said in the posting that you quoted . If you do it this way, you might as well just have an e-mail correspondence.

brevitas

[Ruskie]

There are plenty of topics which we are not allowed to discuss on the boards, that the PM system is useful for. As far as I am aware, you are permitted to discuss anything with any other member via PM, family history related or not.

If a topic is being openly discussed on the board and then some communiciation takes place via PM (excluding the other contributors to the topic), then that is discouraged. Presumably this is what the moderator meant brevitas, but it might be useful if you can ask the moderator to confirm. 

[Gadget]

If a topic is being openly discussed on the board and then some communiciation takes place via PM (excluding the other contributors to the topic), then that is discouraged.

I assumed that that was how Forfarian would have picked up the topic that she wanted to discuss. I often have PMs sent to me asking for info about some aspect/family. I usually reply that they should put the query up on the relevant board as that way others can join in/help. 

If there are living people involved or e-mails to exchange then PMs are the only real way of communicating.  If people want to keep info privately or they are not really FH related, then fine - use PMs  but I'm not sure why e-mails can't be used in this case 


It's not really a big deal - I just said that I didn't like the idea of amalgamation.

brevitas

[JenB]

I often have PMs sent to me asking for info about some aspect/family. I usually reply that they should put the query up on the relevant board as that way others can join in/help. 

I do try to do the same thing, unless there is some very particular reason why this should not happen. (Not relevant to this particular conversation, but when people thank me via PM I try to remember to ask them to post this on the relevant thread so everyone can see it).

As to the amalgamation question, which is how this started, my personal preference is to keep them separate.

As tidybooks pointed out you can view the whole conversation if you wish - this also makes it easier to delete the whole thing in one fell swoop if you so wish