Subject:
|
Re: Set names and numbers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 23:32:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
676 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Simon Robinson writes:
> Here's a possible controversial debate...
>
> The general convention on lugnet seems to be that sets are referred
> to by their numbers only in most postings.
<...snip...>
>
> So what would people think about instead using a convention that sets
> are always identified by the number, and where posters know (or don't mind
> looking up) the US name
> of the set (with the lugnet database being the definitive name in case
> of conflict) they use the name as well?
I personally think this would be a great idea. In most situations, the writer
will already know the name of the set (it's usually right there on the box
next to the number) and they probably will remember the name even when they
have to look up the number. (Hint: Even if you *think* you know a set number,
you should probably look it up anyway to make sure you got it right.)
Also, the more information you provide, the less susceptible it is to
"noise". For example, if I mis-type a set number, the reader might have no
clue that I even made a mistake unless the new number isn't an actual set
number. But if I mis-type a name, the reader has some chance of figuring out
that I meant "Space Shuttle" when I actually typed "Spice Shottle".
In general, I have learned to be very explicit in any electronic
correspondence, since it is very easy for the reader to misinterpret the type-
written word. I personally feel that this is one of the most neglected topics
of "netiquette" (sp?), judging from what I see online.
> The only disadvantage I can think of is possible confusion if people start
> using the wrong names for sets. But my feeling would be that overall it
> would make the lugnet newsgroups easier to use.
This is why it is a good idea to include the set number in addition to the set
name to eliminate any ambiguity.
If you really want a controversial issue, I suggest that people minimize the
use of acronyms in their messages, at least for passages that are critical to
their main point. I know that there are web pages that will tell me that
"FWIW" stands for "For What It's Worth", but I hate it when I can't understand
someone's message without pulling out my secret decoder ring. This is more
important than ever these days, with millions of internet newbies logging on
every month.
Of course, I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to the excessive use of
acronyms, but people who throw stones should live in glass houses, IMHO.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Set names and numbers
|
| Here's a possible controversial debate... The general convention on lugnet seems to be that sets are referred to by their numbers only in most postings. Now I'm a great fan of Lego - I've spent hours on end poring over old Lego catalogues for the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
