Subject:
|
Re: lugnet.market.mess
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:26:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1180 times
|
| |
|
|
> > William R Ward wrote:
> > >
> > > BE IT RESOLVED, that I think the LUGNET charters for these groups
> > > should be amended as follows:
> > > 2. The charter of all other lugnet.market.* groups should be
> > > amended to say "No posting of ads, including bricklink stores,
> > > ebay auctions, or other announcements of LEGO for sale by the
> > > person posting or any organization that he/she represents."
It would be nice to implement this for all groups that do not explicitly
opt for ads. . .
> > > 6. Remove .auction or make it a subgroup of .ads. Discussions
> > > about ebay policies and the like can go in .theory if the
> > > group is made a subgroup of .ads.
Huh? Why make .theory a subgroup of .ads? There's no reason for ads to
be posted to theory, except for illustrative purposes.
Also, I'd imagine that .services would be the place for discussion of Ebay
policies, and .theory more appropriate for discussions of auctions in
general.
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Frank Filz writes:
> > NOOOOOOO (especially NOOOOOOOOOOOOO on combining the auction adds in
> > with other adds). I really really would like to see announcements for
> > eBay and BrickLink (and any other high volume site) each in their own
> > group...
This makes sense, not so much because they are "high volume sites" as
because such sites have excellent search capabilities (and, in the case of
BrickLink, wanted list notifications) that make ads for Lego available
through them a waste of time for most people.
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Kevin Salm wrote:
> Take away Ebay and BrickLink ads and all other For Sale or Trade
> postings and there wouldn't be much left.
I'm not seeing the "take away" part here. Bill Ward proposed segregating
forsale and auction messages away from wants and trades, and Frank Filz
futher recommended (among other things) splitting Ebay and BrickLink
messages away from other forsale/auction messages. None of these would
decrease the quantity of messages, only sort the existing quantities
better so people can read what they want (and, incidentally, actually
*read* .market posts, rather than ignore them all to avoid the
superflous noise).
> Lugnet has excellent compartmentalization that segregates all
> market-type stuff to the market groups.
This is not true.
> This provides easy access to these messages but no one is forced to look
> at them, either. It is not difficult to read Lugnet all day long and
> not view even one For Sale post--unless you wanted to.
That depends on the day in question. For example, most days I can read
.castle without seeing any For Sale posts. . .but that's not because
people can't post them; it's because people in .castle will jump all over
anyone who does so. It is not clear to me that it's better to tell
posters "we'll hate you if you post your for-sale stuff here" than to tell
them "you're in violation of the charter", but the latter isn't an option
(at least while remaining truthful).
> Not everyone wants to see all of the For Sale flogs. But they have a
> purpose and should be allowed to co-exist with other marketplace news.
I disagree. They should be allowed to exist, but I see no reason why they
should be allowed to co-exist with other marketplace news. I think the
posts in .technic.roboriders should be allowed to exist, but not that
they should be allowed to coexist with the posts in .starwars, because I
go to .starwars to read about Star Wars.
This is why I stopped reading .market.brickshops. I'd be more than happy
to keep up with issues involving BrickLink and other brickshops, but that
content was being lost in a sea of flogs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWS Garrison
tgarriso@math.purdue.edu
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~tgarriso/
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: lugnet.market.mess
|
| (...) Exactly. However it's sliced, I think there is a need for places to flog, and a need for places to talk about various stores, technologies, theories, etc. .brickshops, to me, is like .theory, .services, and .shipping, a place to talk about (...) (23 years ago, 20-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: lugnet.market.mess
|
| (...) This has been said before, BUT experience says that posting a notice on market.bst of something special in a Bricklink shop, produces sales. So, people are responding to those notices who would not otherwise have known the "something special" (...) (23 years ago, 21-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: lugnet.market.mess
|
| (...) I think for the most part this is already true. (...) That's not what I meant. I am sorry about the ambiguity. Let me rephrase: "Discussions about ebay policies and the like can go in .theory if .auction is made a subgroup of .ads" (...) Yes, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: lugnet.market.mess
|
| (...) I am not sure I would classify the market groups as a mess. There are some charter issues to work on, but the entire hierarchy seems to be well under control lately (and for as long as I can remember offhand). Personally, I favor keeping (...) (23 years ago, 20-Apr-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
