Hi Si! On 2008-12-29, at 17:59, Simon Lyall wrote:
> Thoughts? I read threads on NANOG which draw me in with a baseline level of interesting information or insight. I am also more inclined to read threads which are being contributed to by people I know, and perhaps they think the same way as I do since the two sets of threads seem more or less congruent. Threads which start with wild speculation and questions, such as the one you mentioned, just get deleted in my client and I don't read them. Deleting a thread is not a particularly onerous task for me, and neither is receiving the mail in the first place -- at its noisiest, NANOG is a tiny whimper in the general roar of inbound mail I receive and discard every hour. [For some reason, though, I do skim those threads on the outages list rather than simply deleting them. Perhaps it's because when I decide to go and look in that folder I'm in the mood for a stream of low- information snippets. On the outages list it's the attempts at analysis and editorial comment that annoy me. Perhaps I'm just easily annoyed.] I would note though that some threads start in the usual inane fashion, but turn out to be front-line reactions to something that will turn out to be bigger, and interesting. Not often, but sometimes. Perhaps the interesting content would follow in those cases even if people were compelled through Force of Private Shouting not to send the initial inanities. So, if you're collecting unstructured data which will never correlate usefully with anybody else's open responses to an open question :-) then here's some: - I don't read threads like this on NANOG, so if they were to disappear I would not be sad; - deleting threads like this on NANOG is not a big deal, so if they were to remain I would not be sad. I could perhaps summarise that answer more pithily as "meh." Joe _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
