| |
In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Ken Godawa writes:
> "William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message
> news:m2r8c3uisd.fsf@komodo.home.wards.net...
> > "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> > > In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Brendan Coughlin writes:
> > > > Hello all!
> > >
> > > Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello! (is there an echo in here?
> > > Yes, there is!!!!!)
> You might consider just posting 1 "hello" in your post rather than
> six. (My brain is hurting with the echo of "hello.")
Sorry about that. It made the point though, eh?, and I think it did it much
more economically than posting the same suggestion to combine multiple very
similar offers into one post as a follow up to all 6 original messages, right?
> Save on reading? The subject was clear. Why open up each one? Mark
> as read for each one and carry on. It's not like there are hundreds of
> posts.
So in your view 6 are OK but hundreds would not be?
What number do you feel would be the reasonable dividing line? 10? 99? (not
one hundred) 199 (technically not "hundreds")? Some other number? This is a
serious question and I hope you (and others) answer it seriously.
> > > (most of what you want are on many an AFOL's wanted list)
> > Sorry, I think Brendan did it right. There's nothing wrong with
> > posting each item separately. It's easy enough to tell by the subject
> > whether he's offering something you want or not.
In my view, It's not the convention here to post the way Brendan did. At
least it wasn't the last time this came up. Perhaps as LUGNET's user
community changes, the norms are changing as well. I'd be interested to see
if that's actually the case or not. Hence XFUT to admin.general...
> I agree.
>
> > And just putting the set numbers in the subject is not good enough -
> > many people do not know sets by their numbers. I for one would not
> > even have read his messages if it didn't have the set *names*.
This is a side issue, but it's a good point. Perhaps just the set numbers
alone would indeed not be a good subject line.
How about this as a suggested line for a comprehensive post that included
multiple sets for trade and multiple that would be considered in exchange?
"FT: Multiple very rare early town sets including 1234 2345 3445 2134 1333 1233"
(pick the N best ones for the subject, till you run out of room)
I would argue that actually is a better subject line, since many of these
sets are indeed very rare. To those that don't know set numbers, they may
also not realise how rare and desireable some of these are.
So... Why bring this up at all?
People are saying, why worry, just skip the 6 posts (if you are news or
web) or discard the 6 emails... but they do place a load, however limited,
that's in my view not needed to be placed, on LUGNET. And on the readers.
Whenever I see "server not available due to heavy load" I worry. And if the
dividing line is (at least according to Ken, and maybe others) way way
higher than 6, that scares me just thinking about it.
Also... Some people use the newsgroups differently than you do, remember...
If you are using the web interface and viewing the posts in sequence using
the links to the next post in the upper right, you're asking the server to
serve you the post without knowing that you would have skipped it. Maybe
that's a bad way to do it. but it nevertheless is a way that i suspect some
people other than me use.
Why bring this up publicly instead of via email to just Brendan?
That point has been discussed before and I'm firmly in the camp that
believes that private emails benefit only the recepient. If multiple posts
of essentially the same info are not a good idea, it benefits all readers to
be reminded of it, not just the person who wasn't aware of the norm.
Now, if the norm IS changing, discussion of that and the ramifications will
in the long term benefit LUGNET more than having it silently change without
it being clear to the community.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
