On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 13:55:57 PM -0500, Mark Weaver (mdw1982@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > actually, its been my experience and also my personal opinion that to > include rather than trim previous bits from previous posts adds more > weight and makes things easier to find with "good" search utilities Correct, I know that. This is not the case with the search engine of the current archives, but certainly is with Google. However: 0) "I can make a mess because somebody else will surely clean up"??? > by virtue of the fact that there are simply "more" keywords to > search on. 1) "More" is relative. If there is one complete description out of 1 MB of archive or ten copies of it in 10 MB the search result is just as good. But happens _faster_. 2) The time wasted manually scrolling web pages or the original messages into an inbox, to search where the one line of new information may be, remains. That is not a personal preference, is a fact. And, in my experience, is quite more than the time waiting for Google to find the initial point. Sorry, my fault to not have specified before that I also thought to manual search of the relevant parts, _after_ some search engine made a result list. Yes, of course this behavior on lists makes me grumpy. That's why I posted :-). Because one or two extra seconds when posting can save a *lot* of time to everybody who will need that message in the future (**). Ciao, Marco (**) ... and a lot of people can still access the Internet only by pay-per-minute or pay-per-byte dialup. And even more should soon find themselves in the same boat with mobile access, just on a much smaller screen. It would be interesting to calculate how much MONEY those users are forced to spend by behavior like yours, but this is another story. -- Marco Fioretti mfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 3 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ May your campfire always burn bright
