Re: 100 Message Limit

--- Joseph Fatula skrzypszy:

> But I'd like to know what you guys think of this idea - making a
> separate list that we all subscribed to, then we all just post new
> threads to whichever has less messages on it.  That way, we'd have
> essentially double the message limit on a single list.  We would put
> the notice in the list description that this is only half of a
> double list, and new members could join both accordingly.
> Any thoughts on this?
Frankly, I don't think it is a good idea. Primo because it creates confusion;
people join one list, other join the other, and it takes time for some of them
to grasp the difference. Secundo because 200 messages a day would be too much.
My own mailbox is constantly close to its limit, so I don't think I would join
that second list.
If such a CONLANG2 list would appear, I would suggest to use it for the lenghty
off-topic discussions, like those about the pronunciation of English. But then,
who would still want to join it?

--- Sally Caves skrzypszy:

> Why not simply ask the list manager to raise the quota?  Is 100 the
> absolute maximum that any list can manage in a day?
> With two lists, we have difficulty cross-pollinating, if you know what I
> mean.  It's hard to keep threads to one topic or ask conlangers to
> "specialize."
You are right about the two lists, but if we would ever have to vote about
raising the quota (if that would be possible at all), I would vote against it.
Personally, I don't mind if a bulk of messages are delayed from time to time.

--- Eamon Graham skrzypszy:

> I don't know, seems kinda complicated to me, but I guess this could
> be an argument in favor of the "specialised" workshops Yitzik and
> Jan have been discussing.  It takes away some of the heavy trafic
> from CONLANG to groups for people who are specifically interested in
> that particular area (are there any extraterrestrial conlang
> groups?  animal language groups?) and then one can share the results
> of their work and findings with everyone on CONLANG.
I agree it is a possible solution, but somehow I hesitate doing so; it would
mean that we take away a lot of stuff that might be interesting for other
conlangers from the Conlang list, only making more space for off-topic
discussions.

What I would like to say in general about this subject:

Let's try to remain on topic as much as we can. There is nothing against
chitchat from time to time, but sometimes it gets out of hand. I remember I
once counted all messages from a weeks or so and tried to classify them. The
result: only 10 % was directly conlang-related, while the rest could be
subdivided more or less equally into subjects that were completely off-topic
and subjects that belong to a "grey area" at best. Well, I think that's not a
healthy situation. And I know that a lot of people are seriously irritated by
the lenghtiness of some recurring off-topic threads, notibly those about
English phonology/pronunciation.
Especially when the amount traffic on the list is high, we should keep our
off-topic replies to oneselves for a moment.

Secondly: instead of sending multiple replies to messages in the same thread,
in many cases it may be worth to send multiple replies in one message. That's
what I am doing here BTW :)

Third thing: make a subject line that tells what the message is about, instead
of blindly copying it from the message it replies to. I think this would make
it a lot easier for those who want to find their way in 100 messages but don't
have the whole day to do so. And, preferrably, use tags. John can tell which
tags are common here.

And at last: don't quote an entire message if you reply one to one line. That
does not influence the 100 messages limit, but could have a positive effect on
the amount of free space in our inboxes.

Jan

=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Reply