Re: On blocking the list (was Re: viruses after the downtime?)

--- Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:
> En réponse à Costentin Cornomorus :
>
>
> >As for raising the message limit, that
> probably
> >wouldn't be a bad idea.
>
> No, if you want me out of the list of course...
Mais non! I certainly don't want you out - but
can you not delete?

> >  There's no reason why
> >anyone here has to lbaour under the notion
> that
> >we _must_ read each and every message in the
> >queue. Feel free to delete messages or threads
> as
> >you please.
>
> Only problem: how do you choose which threads
> you want to delete?
Well, as I said, threads that I'm already
involved in (like this one) get read. Otherwise,
threads that look intersting (like the
transitivity one) get read. This is why I really
hate changing the subject title of threads, even
when they go off topic. Chances are much
increased that I'll delete an old thread with a
new name!

If a thread looks interesting, I'll sample the
first message, and may either continue with it or
delete it (like the verbs of eating one).

Certain people, I always read what they post,
regardless of topic.

Threads marked "OT" usually always get deleted,
unless I've already been reading predecessor
threads.

There are some other minor aspects to this seive,
but that should be a good overview. In this way,
I end up reading about 40 - 60% of the total
volume. Much of that is skimming. So, I could
easily handle it if John set the limit at 400!
;))))

> Sorry,
> but seen the average length of posts here,
> skimming through 100 titles only
> to choose which posts to delete and which not
> (with the big chance that you
> actually delete something interesting and
> sometimes even directed to you!),
That's a possibility. But then, I figure that if
someone really wants to get MY attention, they
can write "ATTN: CONSTANTINE C.!!" in the subject
or else write a private email. Otherwise, if
they're responding to something I wrote already;
chances are close to 1 that I'll look at a
message with a familiar subject.

> and then only reading the posts you kept ends
> up taking more time than just
> reading all the posts.
How so? Reading 50% of the list's messages should
take about half the time of reading all the
messages! ;)

> If you raise the message limit, it makes even >
more
> messages to skim through, and the time spent on
> it grows just as much.
Sure. IF the limit were 400 (and if we ever
generated 400 messages in a day!), it would take
me the same amount of time to pare down to and
read 100 messages as it now takes you to read
every single message generated on a busy day.

> This
> deleting idea just doesn't work, and I have
> experience in it.
Amie! I have experience in it, too, and it works
fine! I used to read everything in this list (and
a few others, plus NGs). It's been a while since
I figured that a large percentage of those
messages just weren't relevant or interesting to
me.

Me I would rather take the risk of missing out on
an interesting gem or three via deletion than the
leave the list entirely, and therefore miss ALL
of them!

> It's just
> quicker to read everything, since most posts
> don't take more than a few
> seconds to read (the same time it would take to
> read the title and decide
> whether to keep the post or not. And if you
> decide to keep it, you still have to read it!).
Maybe we just have different reading styles or
speeds. It takes less than a minute to go through
a hundred titles. First of all, I keep in mind
the threads I was interested in from last time -
so will keep those. If I delete one message, it
takes no thought at all to delete all the others
in the same thread.

> >  If what I have to say doesn't
> >interest you, I won't feel bad if you delete
> my
> >messages! If you can pare down the daily
> >allotment of 100 messages to 30 or 40 of
> >interest, you'll save a lot of time and have
> more
> >time to devote to those interesting topics.
>
> Still doesn't mean that raising the limit is a
> good idea.
Is for me! Obviously, for those of us that read
every single message, perhaps raising the limit
were not so good an idea.

Padraic.



=====
kâsu ñomklyu tsrasi&#347;&#347;i &#347;äk kälymentwam!
    -- Punyavantajâtaka

--

Ill Bethisad --
<http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad>


Come visit The World! --
<http://www.geocities.com/hawessos/>







.

Reply