Would you like it better if people posted "thank you so much for these insightful comments, they have been of the utmost help to me and I hope to refer to them often as I plan my forthcoming trip...." which is what I take "bookmarking" to mean.

For a forum which seems to welcome all other shorthand designations, why object to one more (complimentary) shortcut?

And, yes, sf7307, I know Fodor's search function is iffy, which is why I rely on my computer's "find" function -- control F.

"The people who type "bookmarking" at the bottom of a thread don't understand what it means to create a genuine bookmark (or add the site to favorites), and don't care to take the time to learn."

I know exactly how to bookmark, but I choose not to. Why do I need to store in my computer (under my favorites) many, many, many links when I can just "bookmark" it in Fodors and click on my name to find it later.

Monica ((F)

What do people "bookmark" threads for?

1) For reference since they are planning a trip to the same place.

- in that case, it would be far much easier if one makes a trip-planning favorites folder and save all of these threads into that folder. It is much easier for one to find all the trip-planning threads than going through all the "bookmarked" lists.

2) For a trip report they are interested in reading.

- in that case, why not post a real reply, say, "Thank you for your report; I'll read it when I have time." instead of posting a word: "bookmark"

3) Informative threads, for example, the Paris Apt thread.

- IMO, those threads should be saved in a proper place, either in a word document suggested by Nikki, or a special Favorites folder

Every now and then, I see people "bookmark" threads that are several years old, and the original question or info is no longer correct or current. And because the thread has been topped by the "bookmark" reply, others wasted their time and energy to respond to the OP without realizing the thread is several years old and the OP has already commenced his/her trip!

<i>And, yes, sf7307, I know Fodor's search function is iffy, which is why I rely on my computer's &quot;find&quot; function -- control F.</i>

I've used Ctrl&gt;F too many times. But don't you have to do that on each page separately? It works, but it isn't very efficient.

It is mind boggling what little things can peeve folks.

Totally incredible.

Bookmarking - who cares what someone writes and why?

Why?

Better be bothered with a major problem - folks not reading before adding their two cents what others have already posted and then saying about the same thing or misunderstanding what the issue is.

Picky picky picky

<i>Author: PalenQ
Date: 01/30/2009, 03:17 pm
It is mind boggling what little things can peeve folks.

Totally incredible.

Bookmarking - who cares what someone writes and why?

Why?</i>

My post from 3:11pm -
Every now and then, I see people &quot;bookmark&quot; threads that are several years old, and the original question or info is no longer correct or current. And because the thread has been topped by the &quot;bookmark&quot; reply, others <u>wasted their time and energy to respond</u> to the OP without realizing the thread is several years old and the OP has already commenced his/her trip!

We are going to try to add a bookmarking function in the months ahead so that you can bookmark items to your profile without &quot;topping&quot; posts.

In the meantime, I think it might make just as much sense (as mentioned above) to use your browser's bookmarking function. You can create folders, etc.

In our current set-up, you need to click on the title of the thread again to bring up it's exact url. The forums currently use &quot;frames&quot;; they will not in our new design debuting in a few weeks.

If you have the right url, should be able to come back and find it in the future as well. I believe we will be adding redirects so that if the url name changes you still will be able to pull it up.

Some find it easier to copy and paste the parts that they want to keep into for their trip planning in a word document.

&lt;others wasted their time and energy to respond to the OP without realizing the thread is several years old and the OP has already commenced his/her trip!&gt;

illustrating my peeve - that folks rarely it seems read what others have posted above.

but i now understand your angst over bookmarking more

cheers

Hi; It's interesting to see how 'easily' people get annoyed. ENJOY Iris

Hi sf,

The only thing that posting &quot;bookmark&quot; does is to allow you to click on your name and bring up all of your bookmarked files.

Instead of posting &quot;bookmark&quot; and not contributing to a thread, I wish that people would just &quot;right click&quot; on the title and save the URL to a file.

((I))

Hi; This is a great 'post'. Basically that's all people had to say, 'right click' on the heading and put it in favorites. It is so easy. THANKS for this post, sf. Iris

I am a recent convert to this site and I have found so much useful information - I thank you all.
One of my first posts included asking advice about bookmarking. The first response I received was:

any thread that you like just add &quot;bookmark&quot; or post a message

I soon became aware that this is not the best procedure and I have amended my ways!

As a suggestion, I wonder if that when you register to join and you receive your confirmation email, could the information about how to bookmark be included automatically in this email?

I think I might be interested in following this thread over the next week or two, and would be interested in following it for a while...

...but in the interest of politeness to those who are bothered by my &quot;bookmarking&quot; it - - I won't do that...

;)

Best wishes,

Rex

Thanks, Rex.

((I))

Oh, I thought people who wrote 'bookmarking' where trying to convey -- &quot;I'm also interested in this topic even though the OP's question has been answered, please keep adding responses.&quot;

(I haven't been an offender though! I just bookmark the page on my own computer.)

orange i think has it right and i see nothing wrong or upsetting with bookmarking like that - telling OP you are interested.

I'm with Orange. I assumed that when people wrote &quot;bookmarking&quot; they were interested in the thread even though they might have nothing of interest to contribute. I didn't realize it would annoy someone. (I have never bookmarked -- except for this thread.) I guess with all of the abbreviations on this site, and some not at all obvious, I'm just surprised that bookmarking would be a no-no.

consider this - if folks continue to post &quot;ttt&quot; or &quot;bookmarking&quot; after the forum changes are implemented later this month -- it will push new threads off the list and into oblivion. We will only be able to access the latest 25 threads w/o going into archives. On this board, 25 threads is only a couple of hours.

so a &quot;ttt&quot; means someone's new thread may never be seen by the majority of posters.

Even now w/ unlimited scrolling back @ 50 threads per page, a bookmark or ttt does throw a new thread off the most active first page.

Even now w/ unlimited scrolling back @ 50 threads per page, a bookmark or ttt does throw a new thread off the most active first page.&gt;

and also it can bring back up from Fodor's blackhole an interesting topic or post that otherwise many folks would miss.

A thread drops off after 50 other threads are posted later

I would think that when a thread is not posted on within 50 threads then it sinks not because of the isolated - yes really isolated use of ttt or bookmarking - but because it is wrongly titled or no one knows the answer or no one really cares.

I mean how many ttt's or bookmarkings are there?

I'd say not even one in the usual 50 threads - therefore a non factor to what Janis is claiming IMO. But i do see her point - just arguing that it is not a valid assumption from what i've seen.

&quot;how many?&quot; What often happens is someone who is planning a trip to - say Scotland - will top 6 or 8 old threads at once in order to read them later. So that one lazy poster has sent not one but 8 threads off the active page.

And as mentioned, when the new forum changes are implemented, we will only be able to see the top 25 threads. Others will be archived . . . . . .