From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long)

[estrilda_wolfegg]

I think the problem on the main list is not the number of posts, but 
the length of the posts.  It is fun to read a give and take 
discussion on a topic between several people.  It is overwhelming to 
wade through one person's three-foot essay on their position when 
you are just trying to catch up on the current topics. It is even 
more annoying to see the same three-foot essay reappear five times 
in its entirety as other members comment on it. 
Old text that is not needed to put the new post in context should be 
deleted in replies. Too often, posters copy the old argument to 
contradict it or they are just too lazy or unknowledgeable to delete 
old text after they hit reply.  Readers can read the old argument in 
the original post. Please let them. 
The second problem, in my view, is that the "very large posts" 
with "a lot of research" make the list very unwelcome to anyone with 
less than several hours to spend reading. It would be optimal if 
there were an archive, preferably one where the authors would have 
to figure out what category their dissertation fell into and store 
it with the other treatises on similar subjects.  Then, a short 
summary could be posted on the main list and folks could go read 
it.  It might also eliminate some of the re-hashes of themes that 
have already been extensively researched and presented on the list 
if new essays were posted with the similar old ones.  
I vote for a maximum 300-word limit for each post on the main list.  
Maybe it would even encourage self-editing.  
Estrilda




 
> Shaun wrote: <snipped>

> > I sent a very large post, which I put a lot of research into, to
> > the main list last week, and received virtually no comments about
> > it at all. No reason I should I suppose... it's just very
> > disappointing - especially when I see that far less detailed 
posts
> > on the same types of issues spark a lot of discussion.