List-volume discussion

[Geoff Bannister]

I thought I would try to come in generally on some of the various 
matters which have been under discussion in the last few days. I came 
back to this group yesterday having not looked in for some days as 
nothing seemed to be happening to find about 30 posts to read!!

First, I feel that the idea of having more than one group or sub-
section within the group would probably create more problems than it 
solved. To an extent, I suspect that many people like myself "edit" 
what they read for the sake of time and their sanity. There are 
usually  a number of threads which run and run and run which do not 
interest me, especially in the last few weeks so I simply pass over 
them; I will occasionally dip into one of them to see I have missed 
anything of note but some I leave totally alone (I never touch 
anything to do with Snape for example – sorry to all Snapophiles). In 
other words, if you think it's boring – don't read it....

There is the question of length. This, as folk have pointed out, is a 
difficult one. To impose a word limit might mean that a person might 
be deterred form posting for fear of overstepping the mark. I think 
that length often comes down to judicious snipping where possible. 
This leads me on to one of my hobby horses, that of what I 
call "tennis" replies. Someone has already mentioned these. A post 
appears and someone replies by chopping up the original text and 
answering various points by inserting their own piece in the middle. 
Someone else wants to reply, so they chop up the extended post and 
insert their bit. So the post gets longer and longer and becomes 
difficult to snip and is also often along the line of the "Oh yes it 
is"/"Oh no it isn't" where the posters reiterate the same argument 
until I, personally, stop trying to read the thread out of sheer 
annoyance. If folk could be persuaded to consolidate their gathered 
wisdom at the end of the item, it might then make it easier to give 
the original a haircut....

Finally, the wretched search facility. One problem is that even if 
you start from an older message number, the search always begins from 
the latest one. The only way seems to be if you have any idea 
whereabouts the thread was numerically and dive in and look on the 
main message listing. What I have found useful is to keep my own 
archive. Fairly soon after I joined the group 13 months ago, I 
realised that the search engine was about as useful as a chocolate 
teapot when it came to anything more than about 500 posts back so I 
started to save my own posts (which have now reached about 990 in 
37000 group posts in that time) and I transfer them into Word files 
holding 200 posts. Let me hasten to say that this is not a display of 
overweening pride but it often proves to be very valuable if someone 
queries an older post where I put in my two-pennyworth because I can 
track down something of my own usually within a few minutes. It has 
saved me many  a frustrating session with !Yahoo's little toy.

It has been pointed out that the volume of posts rose sharply during 
the summer college and university vacations. Perhaps this will fall 
when these group members return to considering far less important 
things like astrophysics or the meaning of life.