Subject: (urth) list slowdown

From: Mark Millman <markjmillman at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:59:26 +0000

Folks,

I had forty-two distinct threads from the Urth List comprising one
hundred ninety-three notes when I looked at my e-mail account today.
I last looked on Friday around 5:00 pm, so taking the intervening time
as three days, that's an average of fourteen threads and sixty-four
notes per day.

Ranjit has asked, more than once, that people limit themselves to five
messages per day, but apparently very few people have heeded him.

I'd be distressed to have to give up my subscription to the list, but
I foresee that eventuality if this volume continues.

Mark Millman

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:25:37 +0000

> messages per day, but apparently very few people have heeded him.

I'm trying. And this topic seems important enough to use my fourth (I
believe) for the day.

I agree with Mark. The list is getting a little out of hand, and a lot
of the current discussion seems to be an elevated version of "No it
isn't!" "Yes it is!"

(The mailers that start new threads automatically don't help either,
but I'm not sure what can be done about that.)
-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

---

From: James Crossley <ishmael at drizzle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:26:11 +0000

Echoing and amplifying: Not that any one message or thread is to blame, but
this lurker completely agrees with what Mark's said. I'll be unsubscribing,
at least for a while.

James Crossley

On 8/16/10 1:59 PM, "Mark Millman" <markjmillman at gmail.com> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:32:10 +0000

> messages per day, but apparently very few people have heeded him.

Can you seriously say why it is more important for us to post less instead
of you to be more selective? I don't follow every thread here any more
than I read every line of the newspaper, or even every article in a
magazine devoted to a certain subject of my interest.

If it's not the overall volume, would fewer, longer posts suit you? Would
fewer, thicker threads be better?

Equiring minds and Sturgeon's Lawyers want to know.

---

From: António Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:36:16 +0000

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mark Millman<markjmillman at gmail.com>  wrote:
>

I also think Mark is right. Not because I believe in some sort of 
control, but because this isn't a chatroom. I guess the idea here is 
that messages should present novel content, and that in a clear and 
concise way. Just so the archives dont end up with 100000 iterations of 
arguments that actually say next to nothing. That's tiresome and 
time-consuming to wade through. If we keep to saying things once and not 
forcing others to repeat theirs, it might be a lot more productive. 
Including not debating endlessly what the text says without looking at 
the text. If nothing else, amazon.com is our friend with its 'search 
inside' feature.

> but I'm not sure what can be done about that.)

Why can't people just 'reply' to 'urth at lists.urth.net' and be done with 
it? So far I've gotten the idea that the new thread thing is due to 
something they do for their own convenience. I may be wrong.

---

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:15:36 +0000

Label me chastened.

I hereby promise to play by the rules from now on. Although I'm doing it 
"by rote" without any real comprehension of the problems of those who 
want it to slow down. Do people read all their mail on line? I thought 
IMAP systems like gmail had made that unnecessary. Do they feel a 
genuine need to follow every thread from start to finish? Can't you just 
create a rule to put anything with "urth" in the in a separate folder?

Perhaps people want to feel like they can walk away from their email for 
three days without being left behind in the discussion. I suppose I get 
that.

I don't change titles at all anymore although it's beyond me why it 
matters. If anything, I like a proliferation of titles because I can 
quickly decide if I want to read it.

Oh well, this is the last you'll hear from me today and I'll limit 
myself to below quota tomorrow.

u+16b9

---

From: Dave Lebling <dlebling at hyraxes.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:36:14 +0000

I do many things to help control the list and yet I find the volume 
nearly overwhelming.

I hate to do the "when I was a lad" thing, but in the old days on the 
list (before Long Sun, before Short Sun, etc.) most of the posts were in 
the nature of short essays rather than the quick 
few-lines-added-and-many-quoted that we are seeing lately. People would 
read them and comment thoughtfully with original content. No doubt my 
memories are showing the sunsets more beautiful and the leaves more 
green, but interesting new ideas (like the connection between Greek myth 
and Silk's life) are lost in the shuffle at the current volume of 
messages per day.

And get off my lawn!

-- Dave Lebling, aka vizcacha

James Wynn wrote:
> I hereby promise to play by the rules from now on. Although I'm doing 
> it "by rote" without any real comprehension of the problems of those 
> who want it to slow down. *Do people read all their mail on line?* *I 
> thought IMAP systems like gmail had made that unnecessary.* Do they 
> feel a genuine need to follow every thread from start to finish? 
> *Can't you just create a rule to put anything with "urth" in the in a 
> separate folder?* 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100816/92b58265/attachment.htm>

---

From: Fred Kiesche <godelescherbach at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:49:42 +0000

Not only do some of us read the list online (me), but some of us read
it on dialup (also me!).

As for reading every posting of every thread--it seems when I skip,
then that is when I miss something illuminating and insightful and I
kick myself for not having experienced it as well.

I would vote for longer messages/thicker threads rather than an echo
chamber of me toos or just adding something for the sake of adding
something. I find myself approaching a need to delete all and start
afresh or just unsubscribe from the list until Real Life (TM) allows
me to catch up again.

-- 
F.P. Kiesche III  "Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book.
Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on
being presented with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire.) Blogging at The Lensman's Children
(http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/).

---

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:41:36 +0000

While I am sympathetic to Mark Millman's sentiment, I am, in contrast to
James Wynn, not contrite or chastened. In my opinion this current flurry
of activity is temporary and the result of some minor irritant which has 
infected the board and prodded and provoked members into multiple contentious
discussions. 
 
Soon the topics that have intense interest will decline in number and total postings 
will die down to the handful of posts per day that recent times have seen. 
Moreover I think if we take a yearly average of posts per day for all members it
will compute to rather less than 5 per day even for the most prolific.

>Dave Lebling- I hate to do the "when I was a lad" thing, but in the old days on the 

This sentiment I tend to agree with.

---

From: Ryan Dunn <ryan at liftingfaces.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:15:00 +0000

> will compute to rather less than 5 per day even for the most prolific.

The censure of activity coupled with the censoring of debate is a bit unfortunate.

I am partially to blame for the recent resurgence of activity, and for that I apologize. But the mere fact that I should apologize to the prudish few -- those who don't like their mailbox clogged and haven't learned how to set up Rules and Filters to quarantine the Urth messages, and so forth -- is in itself a let down.

I personally really, REALLY like the discourse on this mailing list, but alas it is not MY mailing list, so if the powers that be don't want to encourage spirited, renewed debate, and still others long for a sunnier yesteryear when every post was a monumental essay on all things holy and Wolfean, then so be it.

Five posts a day it is, sirs and madams.

...ryan

---

From: Ryan Dunn <ryan at liftingfaces.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:39:22 +0000

> will compute to rather less than 5 per day even for the most prolific.

I don't delete any of the Urth messages I receive, they are all in their separate mailbox stored locally on my computer. This gives me the ability to do some simple analytics. Here's what I've found.

There have been 2,363 messages posted over the past 63 days (since June 15, when I first started receiving them in message form).

Since then, here are the top 10 posters. In parenthesis are their total posts followed by their posts-per-day (TP / PPD):

01. Josh Geller (361 / 5.7)
02. David Stockhoff (337 / 5.3)
03. Jeff Wilson (250 / 3.9)
04. Ryan Dunn (200 / 3.17)
05. James Wynn (183 / 2.9)
06. Lee Berman (175 / 2.77)
07. Antonio Marques (153 / 2.4)
08. John Watkins (115 / 1.8)
09. Gerry Quinn (97 / 1.5)
10. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes (81 / 1.3)

...ryan

---

From: Fred Kiesche <godelescherbach at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:33:04 +0000

You know, you are right. My work is more important. So, adios.

On 8/16/10, brunians at brunians.org <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
> f your recreational Reading is Interfering with Your Important Work, Sir,
> I do have a suggestion for You.
>
> Eliminate One or the Other.
>
> Or eliminate something.
>
> I don't know what.
>
> With me it was my left testicle.
>
> .
>

---

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:11:57 +0000

>Ryan Dunn- here are the top 10 posters. In parenthesis are their total posts 
>followed by their posts-per-day (TP / PPD):
 
>10. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes (81 / 1.3)

Awesome work Ryan. You da man! 
 
I think the average would be notably less for some if 
certain off-topic arguments were not factored in. Ranjit's
limit of 5/day would seem to be a presciently wise and
appropriate limit to have set on average.

---

From: Mark Millman <markjmillman at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:52:09 +0000

Dear Mr. (my apologies if this should be Dr.) Wilson,

On Monday 16 August 2010, you wrote:

> than I read every line of the newspa-
> per, or even every article in a maga-
> zine devoted to a certain subject of
> my interest.

The other commenters have answered your questions better than I could do.

Also, the list owner has asked for less volume, and I think it right
to accede to his wishes.

> If it's not the overall volume, would few-
> er, longer posts suit you?

That certainly would help.

> Would fewer, thicker threads be better?

In my opinion, yes.

> Equiring minds and Sturgeon's Law-
> yers want to know.

I don't believe that Mr. Danehy-Oakes addressed any questions to me.

Mark Millman

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:40:04 +0000

> Dear Mr. (my apologies if this should be Dr.) Wilson,

Jeff is fine.

> The other commenters have answered your questions better than I could do.

I asked about your opinion in particular. If you are so loathe to engage 
in the discssion even when directly interrogated, why should the 
discussion be tailored to the preferences of a non-participant?

>> Would fewer, thicker threads be better?

IS it that there are fewer choices to make, to read or delete unread 
fewer posts, to ignore or follow fewer threads?

> I don't believe that Mr. Danehy-Oakes addressed any questions to me.

He is but one of the thousands of Acipenserii of whose existence you are 
unaware.

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
IEEE Student Chapter Blog at
< http://ieeetamut.org >

---

From: Mark Millman <markjmillman at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:22:20 +0000

Dear Jeff,

On Wednesday 18 August 2010, you wrote:

>> > Can you seriously
>> > say why it is more
>> > important for us to
>> > post less instead
>> > of you to be more
>> > selective? . . .
>>
>> The other commenters have
>> answered your questions
>> better than I could do.
>
> I asked about your opinion in particular.

And I indicated that others had expressed my reasoning, making it
superfluous for me to do so; and that my opinion is that their
statements are better than my own is likely to be.

> If you are so loathe to engage in the dis-
> cssion even when directly interrogated,

I'm interested in results, rather than discussion, on this point.  It
seems that many topics are discussed at length without progress--for
example, many hypotheses delivered here do not seem to get refined
even by extensive discussion--and I do not intend that this issue
should provide another example.  Besides which, it's off-topic to this
list.  This will be my last note on the subject; but I'm answering for
reasons of courtesy, because you have--as you indicate--asked me
directly.

> why should the discussion be tailored to
> the preferences of a non-participant?

Well, one non-participant who has asked for a change is the list
owner, and several people have seen fit to continue as they please
rather than as he's asked.  I'd therefore say that the discussion
hasn't been so tailored, despite the preference of a very relevant
non-participant.  This being the case, why should you listen to me?
But I certainly won't get the result I'd like to see if I don't ask.

>> > If it's not the
>> > overall vol-
>> > ume, would
>> > fewer, long-
>> > er posts
>> > suit you?
>> > Would few-
>> > er, thicker
>> > threads be
>> > better?

Given, that is, that I correctly understand your use of "thicker"
here.  I interpret it as implying a higher ratio of information to
verbiage.

> IS it that there are fewer choices to make,
> to read or delete unread fewer posts, to ig-
> nore or follow fewer threads?

All of the above, plus the likelihood that more thought devoted to
fewer posts will result in better--i.e., better-written,
better-reasoned, and better-supported--arguments.

>> > Equiring minds
>> > and Sturgeon's
>> > Lawyers want
>> > to know.
>>
>> I don't believe that Mr.
>> Danehy-Oakes addressed
>> any questions to me.
>
> He is but one of the thousands of Acipen-
> serii of whose existence you are unaware.

It's a pity I have no chrisos for you--not even a counterfeit.

Best,

Mark Millman

---

From: António Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:31:28 +0000

On 19 August 2010 00:22, Mark Millman <markjmillman at gmail.com> wrote:

> should provide another example.

I think this nails it in the head. Imo some of the participants here have
little regard for the subject matter of the list.

I'd especially like it if people here learned to distinguish two quite
different situations:

- Theory A BEGS question X, and someone points out that the answer to X is
likely to invalidate A.
Fine. Useful. May shoot down A or make it better if an alternate explanation
is found.

- Theory B PROVIDES answer Z to question Y, and someone says that the answer
could be W instead.
Wrong. Useless. Doesn't shoot down B because it doesn't invalidate Z and B
doesn't depend on Y anyway. Serves no purpose at all than idle chatter
because of course there could always be a ton of answers to Y, that's not
what's under discussion.

With such a complex prime matter, discussions can go on forever and never
advance an inch. I personally LOATHE discussion for the sake of discussion,
specially because it almost always means people don't take the trouble of
understanding what it's all about, only caring to have a seemingly clever
word to say. But hey, that's me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100819/34ae8ad4/attachment-0001.htm>