On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
Michael, I know you're not this obtuse, so there must be something we are not understanding about each other's stance.
You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry!
Sweeping it under the carpet is exactly what you are promoting here.
Maybe it is the word sweeping.
"Sweeping it away" means deleting to me.
Are you intentionally misquoting me and thinking no one will notice.
Yeah, Michael. I'm misquoting you. That's why your original words are exactly two lines above it. My quote was a simple mistake of putting the quote in the wrong spot. It was supposed to read: "Sweeping it" away means deleting it to me.
"Sweeping under the carpet/rug" is what I said.
Putting out of view.
I am most definitely NOT advocating that. (And no one I've seen has been.)
It appears the opposite.
Yep, it looks like you define sweeping differently than I do. Moving the file doesn't mean get rid of it or put where no one can see it. It moves it so that the search bar doesn't bring it up as the default search result.
You can do that when there is no one left to remember the issue, or you can try to help them remember the issue, because it IS going to come up again.
If this really was an issue you cared about, you would have put a section up on the web page with links to the examples of why this is a "bad thing." You just seem to be arguing against change for the sake of arguing. As we are all fond of saying around here, if this bothers you so much, DO something about it. Create a page deriding proprietary formats.
I get messages all the time about things to improve, this has never been one of them. . .not even once.
When we get ONE message we consider it.
What the heck do you call the message that started this whole thread? A big thank you for having an unreadable file out there? Come on, we do have a complaint message!
Even if we only get one per year, it is still considered, but it is not considered as the kind of major issue you want it to be.
You're right. This isn't major. It should be fixed in about 30 seconds. But for some reason, you're arguing like mad to keep something that results in a lower level of usability. It is really boggling my mind.
Change the search so it is last.
That is exactly what moving the file to the OLD directory (which is a subdirectory of its current location), would do!
Change the comments about not downloading it unless you have a Folio View. Please add a remark that there used to be a free viewer but that Folio changed its mind, just and any other company might do, such as Adobe about .pdf files. . .and I will be MORE than happy for you, and for me.
Why do we need to handle this one differently than we would any other file in the collection. As (I believe) Andrew pointed out, this would normally be handled by moving the file to the OLD directory. So we have an established manner of handling these situations. You just seem to want to fight against it. If, however, putting a disclaimer in the search field is the best we can get... fine, I'll take it. At least it is something (if not the "best practice" method I'd like to see). Josh