 | | Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
The lugnet.lego.direct group is special in that it is a direct communication channel with LEGO (or, more specifically, the business subunit of LEGO known as LEGO Direct, located in New York City). It's intended for two-way discussions with LEGO (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) And darn it -- Murphy's Law -- embarrassing case in point -- I forgot to set the followups on the above post to lugnet.admin.nntp. Please, if you reply to the above post, manually direct your reply to lugnet.admin.nntp and not to both that and (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) <snip> Is there really enough traffic from the LEGO Direct end to justify this?I've seen a lot of posts on this group go unanswered by LEGO Direct.They may not need to give a definite answer but at least acknowledge that they have seen the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) What about in the most recent case (What Kids Want: Not Juniorization thread which I started) when I was actually posting more toward Employees of TLC then AFOLs. I guess the point is: How do we handle comments and questions (rethorical though (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
What about in the case of where one person wishes to discuss further or add info that they feel is relevant to someone's post, when it is clearly possible that additional info could benefit the discussion at hand? It would feel a bit frustrating to (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) This is a good point... this (reply restriction idea) will stop threads from getting longer (arguably keeping them on-topic), but will encourage threads getting wider, which may well cause a clarity loss. James (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
"Mike Petrucelli" <lordinsanity@usa.net> wrote in message news:G9r77D.Dor@lugnet.com... (...) [snip] (...) of (...) questions (...) who (...) I understand the desire to keep the lugnet.lego.direct newsgroup focused. However, I think that this (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) In some groups, the amount of traffic can matter more. But after reading how Todd Lehman set up lugnet.lego.direct, it matters less. Consider the lugnet.scala group: it has almost no traffic, but it serves to allow discussion regarding a (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) If you do this, please create a newsgroup (lugnet.lego.direct.talk perhaps) where such AFOL-AFOL messages are encouraged to be sent. --Bill. (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) Hmm, I'm not following you. For what purpose? I mean, how is that better than what we have already with regular discussion groups outside of the lego.direct area? The idea is to keep the noise levels down so that LD doesn't have so much to (...) (23 years ago, 10-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) Basically, the lego.direct group is for communication directly with LD. But when a discussion thread springs from one of the messages there, it would be good to have a "default" place for FUT. Perhaps if you are planning on adding a filter to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) Seems logical to me. Perhaps instead of an error message for a rejected message, have it automatically "bumped" to a followup group of some kind - lugnet.lego.direct.followup or something. SRC StRuCtures L#765 (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) If it were automatic and silent (i.e., no error message), I worry that people would post and then say, "Hey, where did my post go? It didn't show up! I'll post it again. Hey, where did my post go?" --Todd (23 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) ROTFL True - I hadn't thought of that. Guess an adviso is needed. SRC L#765 (23 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) Yes, please add my name to that list ;] In-your-face notification/warning is a Good Thing. I already "lose" threads that I post in because I didn't notice a FUT was set. 'Course I've been known to lose my keyboard, too, but that's a different (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
Holy cow! I kept this message open on my desktop since it first appeared so that I could think about it and then remember to reply to it. It was message 317 in this group. The latest now is 680! Brutal. Anyhoo... (...) Todd, I agree 100% that the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) ?? Suppose I posted a question about Castle which, to quote Todd's post #6 above, raised "Issues/concerns/suggestions which haven't yet been raised" ? The resulting thread, although about Castle, would of course live in .lego.direct. I think (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
[I finally trimmed lugnet.lego.direct..., I just now remembered Todd's "Murphy's Law" post.] (...) Well, I didn't read anything in Todd's proposal that specifically addresses cross-posting or redirection. He only proposes what would be done for (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
Well this is a first. Only part of this message got posted. LUGNET was extremely slow last night, bogging and timing out left, right, and centre. I never thought that only part of a message could end up being posted. Man I really don't want to type (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) It is strange. I checked the server logs and what's shown in the incoming webpage form log matches the message that appeared. In other words, what the server received when you clicked "Post Message" on the web is exactly what your browser sent (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) What browser was used? With Netscape at least, I regularly see it give up after a transaction is only partly done (I've never experienced this during a post, only during a read). The more I experience HTTP, the more I feel it's a broken (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
