K, since we're all airing our various grievances at the moment, I'm
going to air one of my pet peeves, and I'm using this post as an
example. Don't take it personally, it's pretty common throughout
the whole list, but this is a major reason I delete a lot of GML
posts unread.
The format is an absolute disaster.
Half the attributions are missing. Jill top-posted to Bill's post,
leaving his entire post intact. Deb then responded, and while not
top-posting and she did do some of the proper point-for-point format
I prefer to read (and is proper netiquette) she also left Bill's entire
post in unsnipped.
So we've got a good three pages of badly formatted, poorly attributed,
and overly quoted material -- much of which is not necessary to the
new post. Frankly, this drives me absolutely bonkers and is, as I
said, one major reason I delete a lot of posts unread.
Our natural reading pattern goes from the top down, not the bottom
up. It shouldn't be necessary to have to scroll up and down to get all
the context of what someone is replying to when they
top-post. Attributions are necessary so we know who said what, especially
in a multi-layered post. Leaving in a bunch of extraneous material not
only ends up with people have to read more than necessary, it's rude to the
people who have to pay to download messages by the minute.
Please, people, can we clean up the formatting here?
Michelle
Flutist
PS: before anyone huffs at me for doing what I just griped about, remember
I'm leaving the quoted post intact for illustration. Please snip it out
when replying to this message.
At 02:32 AM 7/31/00 -0600, Deb Rebel wrote:
> >I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I can
> >tell you that I won't be persuaded, just based on how the action was taken.
> >It was done without any discussion or a chance for input from veteran list
> >members by someone who is relatively new to the list and to gerbils, IIRC.
>
>
>Thank you. I will agree to disagree.
>
>Having been on the gerbil forum for a few months, with the last
>month of riotorious topics and various mail going back and
>forth, I was about to sign off in disgust.
>
>There is no way to make everyone happy over this, period.
>There will always be some dissention no matter what was
>done.
>
>I have between total enthusiastic support to my rear served
>on a platter, which is what I expected.
>
>As said, it is an offering, a trial. No one HAS TO take advantage
>of it. It is there for those that want to.
>
>It can be argued until we lose most of the Gerbil Forum List
>members and there still won't be a clear consensus.
>
>Let us agree to disagree; and let us also give this a chance.
>Either it will work, and pare down some of the traffic on
>this forum that is causing many to cry out about 'off topic'
>'stop clogging the list' and 'who cares about X' on here.
>
>I deal with about a thousand pieces of email a day.
>My job-my business-is net related. Dealing with email
>is a serious thing here; and I can wholy relate to those
>complaining about volume, wading through the dross,
>being buried by a list...I pay for bandwidth. So it means
>every message I have show up here costs me.
>
>Forums and lists, I am on a lot of them. One more, if
>it means being able to sort things for me, so I can take
>stuff as I want (skimming as I have time to devote) is
>a more common approach.
>
>The dual type format doesn't always work. Still, let's
>give it six months, the end of January 2001. If it looks
>like it is seriously impacting the GML negatively (I am
>going to remain on that list) it gets pulled. If it relieves
>the pressure and the mailbox volume of those that
>wish to remain on GML only; and reroute it back to
>a more informative and question answering area
>like it was, then that is good.
>
>Do I have time to keep an eye on a list? No. I am making
>the time to keep an eye on it; to 'help save the GGMLE's'
>as someone has stated.
>
>Resigning in disgust does not help cure the problem (s)
>the GML list has.
>
> >As for myself, I would easily classify myself into the "pure expert"
> >category- not based on what I KNOW already, but where my interests lie and
> >what I hope to learn. I have no social interest at all in this list. I read
> >the first post of almost every topic and decide from there what I will
> >follow. If it is social in nature I delete any responses to it, if it's
> >about genetics I delete it because I know I can't help :-) I'm not saying
> >this system would work for anyone but myself, it's just my approach.
>
>
>And I respect all of this.
>
> >I also agree that this is not a new problem- in the 2 1/2 years I have been
> >reading and filtering messages, nothing of late has required a change in my
> >reading tactics, or time spent dealing with GML emails and from that I
> >conclude that the list itself hasn't changed all that much.
> >
> >Isn't it possible, also, that the list itself isn't deserving of so much
>blame
> >for the change in frequency of the "experts"? True, maybe some people
> >are unhappy enough with some things to sign of, but I don't think that
> >accounts for everything. Things happen in lives, situations change, jobs
> >change- we have no way of knowing or accounting for any of these factors
> >related to the people who no longer post much. I know when I start vet
> >school, I anticipate having near zero time to surf the web and belong to
> >email lists as I do now.
>
>
>In the two months I've been here because I ended up rescuing the
>adorable little gerbils I now have (and have precipated gerbil fever
>so that I'm smuggling new colors into the house), I have greatly
>appreciated the advice I've gotten here when I asked. I may
>be a gerbil neophyte, but a veteran in keeping another kind of
>small animal, and that experience I have shared where it might
>help another.
>
>I'd hate to see the GML go down. Consider this my attempt
>at helping it not. What's gone on the last few weeks certainly
>doesn't seem to be helping....and if this offering doesn't I will
>be the first to admit it didn't and end it. If that happens, perhaps
>we will learn something off it that will help.
>
>All I ask, is give it a chance. You don't have to subscribe.
>You don't have to support it. Just don't deny it and drag it
>down, until it has a chance.
>
> >That's all for this go around,
> >Jill
>
>
>Deb R.
>
> >> From: Bill Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: Social List and GML
> >> Date: Sunday, July 30, 2000 4:07 PM
> >>
> >> From: "Jill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am in full agreement with Julian- that is what I was trying to
> >>>express in my post yesterday but I think I was too
> >>>aggravated to do it coherently.
> >>>
> >>>It is possible to deal with all topics effectively right here, and
> >>>I agree that the unilateral action was inappropriate. That is
> >>>my vote.
> >>
> >>Good and thoughtful points, Jill, except I disagree that a
> >>unilateral experiment was inappropriate. You do not have
> >>to subscribe to SocialGML.
> >>Only time will tell you whether you should.
> >>
> >> Let me point out a couple things supported by scientific data (which you
> >> would understand if I had any, because of your professional studies).
> >>
> >> ** As Julian says, people interested in gerbils approach them from
> >> many directions. More people are interested in gerbils (yay!) so the
> >> diversity of keepers also has spread.
> >>
> >> ** To simplify, I use terms like "expert", and "information" vs.
> >> "socializing". It's much more complicated than that, of course. Let me
> >> invent new terms: "pure expert" vs. "pure petowner and social person".
> >> Both are in the gerbils community, and both are responsible for the care
> >> of animals -- which after all, might be the most important thing.
> >>
> >> ** GML has grown, but not as rapidly as gerbils can reproduce. (*smile*)
> >>
> >> ** More diverse gerbils interests appear in GML.
> >>
> >> ** GML beautifully serves the people who find that GML serves them well.
> >> (Please think what I just said.)
> >>
> >> ** You and I are in the middle population of gerbildom's humans.
> >> Julian's Charter and Guidelines serve us very well.
> >>
> >> ** But you and I do not represent the extremes toward "pure expert" or
> >> "pure social person".
> >>
> >> ** Data shows that pure experts become dissatisfied and either leave GML
> >> or stop writing very often. IMHO, without the experts GML loses its
> >> principal reason for being -- talking about gerbils and their care and
> >> breeding.
> >>
> >> ** Data shows that people often unsubscribe from GML. I guess that
> >> their needs aren't being met.
> >>
> >> ** Data shows that pure social persons also are frustrated. They
> >> want to share their personal happiness or sadness with everyone,
> >> but GML today cannot support all that traffic and it would become
> >> worse if GML grows.
> >>
> >> ** So you and I might be satisfied, but people at "extremes" are not.
> >>
> >> ** IMHO GML is a model of the best kind of (international) Web
> >community.
> >> I think nobody wants to drive away other gerbils lovers. GML has nice
> >> informal processes for shaping itself -- and sometimes for healing
> >> itself.
> >>
> >> So IMHO, GML can stand pat and continue to hope everyone can crowd into
> >> the middle like us. Or GML can sponsor a parallel email list with a
> >> different emphasis, to see if a wider range of gerbils interests can be
> >> served.
> >>
> >> ... Bill
> >> Save the GGMLEs!
