list slowdown

Jeff Wilson · 16 Aug 2010, 22:32 · from 2010-August.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: jwilson at io.com (Jeff Wilson)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:32:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: (urth) list slowdown
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikQYLOeDqxEAeddbVTfrFWuRY6PNh9Eq-=FGE-J at mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikQYLOeDqxEAeddbVTfrFWuRY6PNh9Eq-=FGE-J at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00cdd7cd45ff0b4452ca0e73e959954b.squirrel at webmail.prismnet.com>

> 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.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net