Quantity VS Quality

[M.Clifford]

I would like to lend my support to a couple of things that you have 
raised Steve. 

> Regarding Quantity-
> 
> This is probably the most difficult problem of all to control. 
First what tools are available to the moderators to impliment 
controls? ..... edit ... [on Yahoo mailing list template] I wouldn't 
be surprised if it has very limited management tools. 
> 

Valky:
You guess correctly Steve, the management tools are limited, there 
isn't much by way of controlling quantity short of moderation or all 
out message blocking on individuals.
This is why I find particularly impressive, the ingenuity of HPFGU's 
management in using a network of sites to handle the load in the 
past. 
(Fortunately distinctions were much easier to draw back then ie 
canon v Non-canon v Fanfiction, this time round it is not so 
straight -forward)


Steve: 
>I did a quick short survey of high volume posters in the main 
group, and I don't see a huge problem in individual personal 
volume. ...... one recent high volume poster, who shall be referred 
to only as "E"...... across approximately a week, "E" typically 
posted 1 or 2 times a day.

Compounding that is that recently we have had several VERY long 
threads. 'Dumbledore the General' generated 50 posts ...... don't 
even get me started on 'Snape' 

Those exeptionally long threads ...... are an indicator that 
subjects of a great
interest to a great many people were being discussed ........ high 
volume is related to subjects of high interest... (fair bit of 
editing) >

Valky:
IMO you make a brilliant point here Steve. 
This has been my view, also, that it is the Threads themselves are 
contributing greatly to High volume floods of posting. 

I do believe that this is the crux of the frustration intimated in 
this discusson. Having to scan back through several pages of the 
SAME topic in order to find some particular variety of interest to 
yourself, can be frustrating. 

OTOH these massive threads and their offshoots also generate a good 
deal of great discussion, and they entertain people. Generally, the 
content is not considered to contribute to a view of 'low quality" 
posting, as I understand it, (with minor exceptions).  
So I think that, to some degree at least, reducing quantity by a 
blanket ruling might actually prove to not clear up the problem at 
all. In fact, consider these ways it could create even more 
frustration.

If someone has *three posts* in the midst of the progression of one 
of these very interesting Mega!Threads there is yet a good chance 
that this someone would still use the majority of them on that Mega!
Thread.  Especially if , before the ruling, that person would often 
use four or more posts up one interesting subject. And even if they 
don't, it will *still* be several days till the Mega!Thread clears. 
Other subjects may simply get *less* answers from each member, 
probably only one, and definitely no more than two.

As for multiple answer posting, well isn't that just playing into 
Yahoomorts hands? Once subject headers lose their ability to help us 
search for topics, what recourse do we have?
At the moment a few members are using the style, and it causes 
minimal mess on this small scale. But I wouldn't want to try and 
project the consequences of every message having mutiple threads 
addressed within them. If we expect members to easily find the 
upthread content that the message refers to we are fooling 
ourselves, pure and simple.

I would like to be able to say something in support of simple 
solutions such as 3-a-day, really I would, but I don't see anything 
positive about them.