On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 10:24, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Craig White wrote: > > >> how about: don't post lengthy answers to unasked questions. if you've > >> got this much to say, get a web page, ok? > > > evidently you haven't been reading this message base for the past few > > months. This post (Lisa's) is very much appreciated by a large number of > > active users of the message base since they questions seemed to get > > asked time and time again. > > > > Suggest that you create a 'filter' or procmail rule to eliminate this > > weekly message so you don't feel compelled to sound off next time. > > given the interesting feedback, i think it's worth clarifying a > couple of points, all in the genuine interest of perhaps making that > regularly-posted FAQ more useful, if it's going to continue. so, to > set the stage ... > > yes, melgil88's information is potentially really handy. no, it's > *not* being presented appropriately. so what should be changed? i'm > glad you asked since, if it's going to be a recurring event, it might > as well be done right. (yes, i'm insufferable, too, and i don't have > to work hard at *that* either. :-) > > for a quick timeline, i went back to the archives and found the > following (and, yes, i really am looking for an excuse to not do any > real work, but rather just kick back and admire lance's annihilation > of the pack today.) > > the first post suggesting a regular FAQ was on, AFAICT, jun 6 (which > suggests that mr. white is stretching reality just a wee bit when he > talks about "the past few months" -- i don't mind disagreement, i do > mind altering reality). > > Jun 6: the proposal > Jun 7: apparently, the first actual content post > Jun 12: the next post, content resembles the first one > Jun 19: next installment (apparently, the same content but > without the shouting :-) > Jun 26: and again (with the top caption "No changes this week > ...) > Jul 3: and again (no caption, but the first part of the post > appears to be identical to the previous one -- same > stuff? possibly.) > > ... etc ... an obvious pattern of once a week. so jump ahead to > today, jul 24, in the archives, cursory examination, first part of > post looks exactly as it did on jul 3. so, what do we conclude? > well, a couple of things. > > first, just who would this regular posting be useful for? > obviously, anyone having one of those problems. but if some poor > schmuck doesn't time it *just* *right* and misses the weekly post, > then they're out of luck. given that it's a post, it will have gone > by and, since they won't see it again for another week, chances are > they'll just post to the mailing list, anyway. in short, unless one > times it just right, the posting is not terribly useful and saves no > one any time and the mailing list still takes a hit. > > now, if the poor schmuck still goes and asks, you all know what the > response is going to be: "hey, that's been asked lots of times, it's > in the archives. sheesh.", forcing the unfortunate noob to figure out > where the archives are, how to get to them and how to search them > perhaps. whereas, if the info was on a web page, a simple URL would > solve everything. the clear advantages of a web page. but there's > more. > > given that the content seems to barely change from week to week, i > have to ask (and i'll pick on mr. white here again, since he seems to > have his cycling shorts in a bunch), what is the value to mr. white to > see almost exactly the same helpful info once a week, week after week? > if it's that useful, mr. white, i suggest saving it to a mail folder. > lots of us do it. it's not hard. (perhaps melgil88 can add that as a > useful tip.) > > and even if new info is added, unless there's an *obvious* change in > content, you run the risk of introducing what i've just decided to > call "MOTD syndrome". most of you know exactly what i'm talking about > -- logging in and seeing the same opening to the "message of the day" > file, and just blowing off the rest of it. at the very least, new > stuff should be at the top to get one's attention. even better, once > something has been posted once or twice, it should be relegated to > offline archives to keep the content fresh so that people will want to > read it. > > this is precisely why i started to ignore that posting -- i > remembered it opened with > > ***WinXP Dual boot problems** > > *every* *single* *time*, so i wrote it off as just repetitive and > redundant. and there's just so much 10K worth of repetition and > redundancy i'm interested in getting in my mailbox once a week. > (i'm also a bit put off by any postings that contain the demand > "README" in the subject line. i've used mailing lists long enough to > know that postings are, in fact, for reading and not for, say, > polishing the car or deworming the cat.) > > a compromise? if you're really set on doing this, how about a > weekly post of *new*, *breaking* goodies, with a pointer to the > archives for the rest of it. if that was the case, heck, *i'd* read > it. but if it's going to be predominantly the same stuff over and > over, just say so, and i'll happily shut up, redirect it to /dev/null > and get back to work. > > rday > > p.s. and please, no argument that lots of people find this stuff > useful. of course they do. personally, i've been running FC on my > inspiron 8100 for over a year, but i'm not going to post a weekly FAQ > of the same content on how to do it. that's not, in my opinion, what > the list is for. if you have this much info you want to share, either > make it constantly fresh, or get a web page. --- I'd say that you should have stopped while you were ahead (your original post) - contrary and curmudgeonly was concise and well reasoned. Given your proclivity to split hairs, it would probably be best if you simply redirect to /dev/null and get back to work. I'm not sure what you feel you have accomplished by all this - clearly those that were paying attention the last few months truly appreciate Lisa's efforts and 'know' that they have been beneficial. As to my cycling shorts, the benefit is that people who look at the archives, or post here can be referred to previous week's posting for solutions to common problems, the bunching notwithstanding. Your comments are curious given that they are 7 weeks (and not months - I'm glad you are around to keep my excesses in check) after the debate about them occurred. Obviously, feeling that your needs weren't adequately represented in the debate, you wish to start it all over again. I would submit that if you become disinterested in merely critiquing from the sidelines and feel you can do it better, Lisa and everyone else would defer to you handling this chore. It was a strictly voluntary effort from Lisa, and many of us saw the value, both perceived and apparent. You could remove the topic from this list and send a private email to Lisa with your suggestions. I will try to go silent on this thread now...it's been beaten to death. Craig
