To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 12828
12827  |  12829
Subject: 
Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general
Date: 
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 18:38:00 GMT
Reply-To: 
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.spamlessCOM
Viewed: 
82 times
  
Mookie wrote:

Ok Larry, (or anyone else) what do you think we should change?? I'm up
for changes in it.. I just want something that will keep these boxes
moving and not to all the same people, We've got people on the lists
that have never received a box yet... and some <me included> who have
received all that they wanted too.. I don't think that's fair.

I agree. Your proposed rule doesn't address the problem, though, which I
see as this: We did things first come first served. That's usually fair.
But in this case, what it resulted in was the following:

Person A discovered this thing. Person A asks to be put on all the
lists.
Person B ditto, person C ditto, person D ditto...

and you end up with a bunch of the lists having almost the same people
in almost the same order. Kind of laying down sediment layers, you can
drill in OK or in MI or in MA or even in the highlands of Africa, and
you find the same layers in the same order.

Maybe some more randomization is needed. Maybe we need to swirl all the
lists around so that all the boxes go around in different orders.

But your rule IS good in theory. I ain't the expert on what exactly
isn't workable but something about tracking who has what and determining
who to send to next based on whether someone has a box or not strikes me
as a bit hard to administer centrally and a bit unworkable for a person
deciding where to send a box... try working some scenarios and you'll
see what I mean.

Again, to reiterate, it's trying to tackle a worthy problem. Just not
sure if it's going to fix it. Randomization MIGHT, for less
administrative work. (just a periodic swirling... and never swirl the
person about to get a box to later in the list, just shuffle people
farther down around).

I am brainstorming, that's not the only answer by all means.

--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com  http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.

NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
 
(...) I've already tried to take care of most of this, that's why you'll find the lists aren't in exact order as they are on the sign up list, though that was agreed to long ago. though I like your idea of just moving the people around.. that's (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
  Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
 
(...) Probably not a solution for all the boxes (maybe a couple of them?) but how about a dynamic list rather than a static one. Rather than sending the box to whoever first expressed interest 6 months ago, send it to whoever replies first to a post (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
 
Ok Larry, (or anyone else) what do you think we should change?? I'm up for changes in it.. I just want something that will keep these boxes moving and not to all the same people, We've got people on the lists that have never received a box yet... (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)

25 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR