Re: Ebb and flow (was Re: Naisek Pages Updated)

Hallo!

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:37:47 -0400, Amanda Babcock Furrow wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 09:58:26PM +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> [...]
> > Yet, things weren't really better back then.  The list just
> > overflew with off-topic posts; there were usually about 200
> > to 400 posts per day, with only about 50 being even marginally
> > on topic.  (Or so it felt to me - I never actually counted.)
>
> My first thought in response to this was "If it took 200 to 400 posts
> a day to support those 50 a day on-topic posts, it was worth it!"
> Imagine, 50 posts of on-topic conlang per day.  But I'm not sure we
> ever got quite that voluble.
>
> I opened my biggest-looking 2000 archive, October 2000, and found I'd
> kept 2316 messages (I tended to delete only "take me off this list"-level
> of irrelevancies, so I have most of the posts).  That's under 100 a day.
> As for how many were on-topic... I'm not volunteering to count :)
>
> Now, granted, there was a need at some point for the 100-a-day total
> limit...  2003 looks like it was starting to get that busy.  And yes, it
> was overwhelming by then.  But I miss it.
Perhaps the numbers were overall much lower than I seem to
remember.  Perhaps 100-200 off-topic posts and about 20
on-topic posts every day.  At any rate, it felt to me that
I had to wade through enormous amounts of dross to read the
few things that were interesting.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:09:09 -0400, Amanda Babcock Furrow wrote:

> I have another thought on the way the list has changed.  When reading
> my 2000 archives, I note that where people today provide a link to
> their webpage, we used to type out the grammar info (formatted for
> monospace font!) in the emails.  Perhaps that encouraged more replies?
Maybe, yes.  Back then, many list members did not have web
sites and posted their grammar sketches here.  Today, most do
have a web site and put their stuff there.  At any rate, it
feels to me as if there was more discussion of particular
conlangs on the list than there is now.

But perhaps it is the usual "good times" delusion.  The good
things of the past tend to last longer in the memory than the
many minor annoyances, so it seems as if things were better
in the past though they really weren't.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf