Great Ideas of the 21st Century (7 years in...)

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
How does Outlook do conversation threading? Is there something above and beyond "Sort by Subject"? That's not really the same thing. Outlook blows, but unfortunately I have to use it at work.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://lifehacker.com/software/email...ail-157042.php

[DonkeyKongSr]

Outlook>>>>>>This Lotus Notes BS I have use now

Seriously, could they make a less user friendly program?

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Outlook>>>>>>This Lotus Notes BS I have use now

Seriously, could they make a less user friendly program?

[/ QUOTE ]
Send this to your IT dept: http://www.google.com/a/?utm_source=...landing-nav-v1

And get everyone else to suggest it too.

[Blarg]

Wiki is a great idea, but not as great as it's given credit for. It's still "information lite." Great at what it does, but it doesn't do it in much depth and is far from reliable.

[Dids]

Threaded emails are for simple people who can't remember who said what or don't include the original message in the reply. I mean, nice feature if you're used to it, but I get along more than fine without it.

[Thug Bubbles]

[ QUOTE ]
Threaded emails are for simple people who can't remember who said what or don't include the original message in the reply. I mean, nice feature if you're used to it, but I get along more than fine without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have that backwards. Non-threaded emails are for simple people who don't get into extended conversations with multiple people. I rarely use my email, so i remember with dread the first mass-conversation I got sucked into. 90 [censored] emails in an afternoon.

If you bother to think about it, threaded emails are very useful for people who are heavily involved in email usage.

[kidcolin]

Dids,

I get along fine without it. I use Yahoo, mainly because I'm too lazy to tell everyone "hey email me at gmail from now on." It's an awesome feature though.

Including the original message SUCKS compared to threading. So often an important email gets reply-all'd by multiple people at once. Now all the pertinent information isn't included in one simple to read mail entry. Threaded mail rules because it removes all the original text and just keeps track of everything.

(btw, I just gave conversation mode a shot in outlook and it sucks).

edit: and Dids, not sure if your advanced brain can handle the simplicity of this, but I'd venture to guess companies could save a lot of money and resources if they got everyone committed to threaded email clients. I don't know how much extra code is needed to support email threading, but it must pale in comparison to the ridiculous amounts of redundant data storage our email clients have to do because every reply includes data that has already been sent. So a simple initial mail that's 10KB turns into a ~100KB email thread if there are 10 1 line replies. If it's threaded and no one includes original text, storage would be just a bit more thank 10KB. Those data saving add up.

[fuzzwonder]

the baconator

[pokergrader]

I don't even remember the last time I walked anywhere. Segway FTW.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
Threaded emails are for simple people who can't remember who said what or don't include the original message in the reply. I mean, nice feature if you're used to it, but I get along more than fine without it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very wrong. Look at the OOT thread list. As it is now = threaded Gmail. Now imagine that instead of just showing the topics, it showed the subject line and poster for every single reply of every topic. That's conventional email. (Obviously email volume is less than OOT volume, but that doesn't make it any less useful.)