# list slowdown *The Urth list — 17 messages, 10 voices, 16 Aug 2010* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Mark Millman *16 Aug 2010, 20:59* 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 --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *16 Aug 2010, 21:25 · in reply to Mark Millman* > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mark Millman wrote: > Ranjit has asked, more than once, that people limit themselves to five > 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 ``` --- ### James Crossley *16 Aug 2010, 21:26 · in reply to Mark Millman* 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" wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *16 Aug 2010, 22:32 · in reply to Mark Millman* > 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. 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. --- ### António Marques *16 Aug 2010, 22:36 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mark Millman wrote: >> Ranjit has asked, more than once, that people limit themselves to five >> 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!" 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. > (The mailers that start new threads automatically don't help either, > 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. --- ### James Wynn *16 Aug 2010, 23:15 · in reply to Mark Millman* Mark, 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 --- ### Dave Lebling *16 Aug 2010, 23:36 · in reply to James Wynn* 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?* --- ### Fred Kiesche *17 Aug 2010, 00:49 · in reply to Dave Lebling* 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. > On 8/16/10, Dave Lebling wrote: > 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?* ``` 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/). ``` --- ### Lee Berman *17 Aug 2010, 02:41 · follows Fred Kiesche* 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 > 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. This sentiment I tend to agree with. --- ### Ryan Dunn *17 Aug 2010, 03:15 · in reply to Lee Berman* > On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Lee Berman wrote: > 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. 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 --- ### Ryan Dunn *17 Aug 2010, 03:39 · in reply to Lee Berman* > On Aug 16, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Lee Berman wrote: > 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. 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 --- ### Fred Kiesche *17 Aug 2010, 10:33 · in reply to Fred Kiesche* You know, you are right. My work is more important. So, adios. > On 8/16/10, 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. > > . >> 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. >> >> On 8/16/10, Dave Lebling wrote: >>> 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?* >> -- >> 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/). >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee Berman *17 Aug 2010, 11:11 · follows Fred Kiesche* > Ryan Dunn- 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) 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. --- ### Mark Millman *17 Aug 2010, 19:52 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* Dear Mr. (my apologies if this should be Dr.) Wilson, > On Monday 16 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? I don't > follow every thread here any more > 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 --- ### Jeff Wilson *18 Aug 2010, 05:40 · in reply to Mark Millman* > On 8/17/2010 2:52 PM, Mark Millman wrote: > Dear Mr. (my apologies if this should be Dr.) Wilson, Jeff is fine. > On Monday 16 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? I don't >> follow every thread here any more >> 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. 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? >> 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. IS it that there are fewer choices to make, to read or delete unread fewer posts, to ignore or follow fewer threads? >> Equiring minds and Sturgeon's Law- >> yers want to know. > 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 > ``` --- ### Mark Millman *18 Aug 2010, 23:22 · in reply to Jeff Wilson* 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? >> That certainly would >> help. >>> Would few- >>> er, thicker >>> threads be >>> better? >> In my opinion, yes. 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. > -- > Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com > IEEE Student Chapter Blog at > < http://ieeetamut.org > Best, Mark Millman --- ### António Marques *19 Aug 2010, 01:31 · in reply to Mark Millman* > On 19 August 2010 00:22, Mark Millman wrote: > 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. 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. ---