From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long)

[Erin]

Estrilda wrote: 
> I think my suggestion for short, organized opinions, and summaries 
> linked to a categorized archive might have been misunderstood by 
> some of the responders. 

Erin responds:
Perhaps so, and if I seemed to be making fun, please forgive me.  
It's clear that your vision differs from my nightmare newbie list.  
But I don't see that more organized and concise opinions nessacerily 
follow from requiring shorter posts.  I've seen just as much drivel 
from short posts, and I don't see how that can change without a level 
of moderator involvement that I don't think any of us want.



Estrilda wrote:
Many long posts include lengthy text from canon and from other essays 
that could be much more easily cited to the source if we used an 
archive.  

Erin:
True, but as I've already said and at least one other member has 
mentioned, some of us like to have the canon or *relevent* quotes 
from another theory right there in the post that we're reading.  
Saves time.  I don't want to have to go clicking on a zillion extra 
links or flipping through the pages of seven long books just to 
locate the few sentences that will let me understand what the current 
post is commenting on.



Estrilda wrote:
<snip> perhaps members could present their more verbose opinions by 
referencing a section of an archive discussing similar ideas (thereby 
avoiding rehashing worn out ones), and posting research marvels 
somewhere we can read them at leisure and actually find them later.

Erin:
I support the idea of an archive solely for the good posts in order 
to make them easier to refer back to, but only *after* they've 
appeared on HPfGU.  It seems to me that your ideas would turn HPfGU 
into a suggestion list rather than a discussion list; "Go here and 
read this!" "Go there and read that!"   And then what?  Come back to 
the list and discuss them in less than 300 words?  What if you had 
more than one question or comment on an essay?  Would you have to 
break it up into two or three posts?

That's not what I want out of my HPfGU!



Estrilda wrote:
And don't even get me started on the sophistry involved in many of 
the three thousand word essays suggesting a simple theory.  Shorter 
posts (even a 1000 word suggested limit) and archived posts 
(inspiring more author investment in proofreading and organization?) 
lend themselves more easily to self-correction and less circles. 

Erin:
It's true that some members do like to pontificate.  But some of us 
simply enjoy reading more than others, I suppose.  I can't tell you 
how many times I've finished one of Elkins' posts and wished that she 
had even *more* to say on a subject.  Sometimes a theory is so good 
you just don't want it to end!

As for better logic and more proofreading, those are again more 
quality than quantity issues, and I don't see how they are to be 
solved without, say, permanent moderation or some other measure more 
drastic than most members would be willing to support.


 Estrilda's signature included:
> (who <snip> just exceeded her own suggested length by a good 40 
> words. Oops.)

Erin:
See there?  See how easy it is to do?  There's lots of stuff that 
just won't *fit* into those teensy little posts!  Bet you're 
regretting you pointed it out now, aren't you?  Sorry, I just 
couldn't resist :-)


--Erin, who posts with no doubt that she's trampled all over the 
proposed word limit.