[MD] A Suggestion for Horse

[Horse]

Hi Lu, Craig, Matt, Ian and All

I think Matt's said just about everything I would have said if I'd been 
at home last night and not out at the cinema watching a wonderful film 
that's unlikely to make it to the other side of the pond.

craigerb at comcast.net wrote:
> [Lu] 
>   
>>  I would like to contribute more, but... there are just so MANY words! 
>>     
>
> Agreed. 
>   
Agreed here as well - there are times when MD seems more like twitter 
than an email discussion list!! I'm sure if members could at least try 
and stay within the rules then there would be a lot less traffic. 
Perhaps a twitter-style 128 character post limit would be useful! 
Looking at the amount of noise per post, as Matt points out ,how hard is 
it to hit shift/page down/delete and don't get me started on the number 
of posts which are just copies of previous posts with nothing whatsoever 
added. The big problem, in my opinion, is that many members are not 
prepared to take their time when replying so as to produce easily 
readable replies and counter-replies. A one line reference along with 
relevant snips and cuts would make posts much more readable.
> Horse, 
> At present, this site separates the "MoQ Forum" ( = monographs) 
> from the "MoQ Discussion [MD]" (= dialogue). 
> I propose a third (dare I say) "level" (= chat).  (Can be pronounced with 
> an "sh" sound.) 
>   
I had intended to start a bulletin board style discussion group some 
time back but as Matt has said it would likely kill the MD list and that 
would be a shame as the MD has become quite well known as THE place to 
discuss Pirsig's MOQ. It would also be much harder to maintain and 
moderate with all the problems that this would entail. I do think about 
it from time to time and have experimented with phpBB (which seems quite 
reasonable) so I'm not ruling it out - just not in a rush to make more 
work for myself.

As Matt also points out we've tried other lists (MF) which start out 
well and then slide off into oblivion after a while due to what appears 
to be lack of interest and poor participation. There's also the 
requirement to moderate posts and try to get members to stay within the 
rules - and the amount of vitriol that can be generated when a post gets 
rejected is not even remotely funny. And if you want a more leisurely 
paced discussion list you need moderation to ensure adherence to rules 
or you'll just have 2 lists which generate too much traffic.

> The archives are overwhelmingly close encounters of this third kind. 
> They have become worthless for research & would prohibit any endeavor 
> such as "Lila's Child II". 
>   
Not sure we need LC2 - the first one was great but a huge amount of work 
- just ask Dan. I agree that it's not easy to trawl through the archives 
but it's also quite good fun to just dive in at random sometimes and see 
what turns up.
> I propose that what is now the MD NOT be archived permanently. 
> Instead, a t the end of the exchange on any subject, the initiator & others 
> should summarize anything of value & summit it to the archives. 
>   
That'd be nice - can't see it happening though. And any summary would be 
immediately subject to disagreement and more discussion which would 
require further summary. There's also the point that there a quite a few 
people (non-members) who use the archives to follow discussions instead 
of joining as members and having umpteen post drop into their inbox 
every day. I like the archives and can't see why their presence should 
be a problem. Perhaps, if members wish to summarize particular threads a 
new list could be started which is not subject to replies or discussion 
- one way submissions only. Dunno - it's a thought though!
> Everything else could be deleted. 
>   
What's your obsession with deleting stuff - it doesn't cost much to keep 
the whole lot.
> That way nothing of value gets buried (or lost). 
>   
Except for all the original data.
> Also, Horse, any post with "Horse" in the subject line, gets automatically 
> forwarded to you.  
>   
I have a filter set up for exactly that purpose - the subject line shows 
up as bold and red. Crude but it works.
> P. S. Is there any difference between "thread" & "subject"? 
>   
Well, the spelling's different!  :)

Overall, I think that if members took a bit more care over their 
replies, removing irrelevant text, keeping to the subject, not firing 
off huge numbers of posts etc. most of the problems would go away - but 
I've said something very similar on a number of occasions and it just 
gets ignored. Personally, I would prefer quality to quantity but that's 
just me!


Horse

-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson