Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:16:47 -0400
Reply-To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: Trimming
In-Reply-To: <4FB97590.9030509@turbovans.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 06:52 PM 5/20/2012, Scott Daniel - Turbovans wrote:
>So what exactly is the problem with replies to posts where lots of text,
>sometimes for 5 exchanges , is left on ?
a) it makes the list function poorly.
b) it's contrary to general Internet etiquette.
c) it's against list policy.
>is it a technical issue ..like it fills up storage capacity somewhere ?
>( understandable )
fills up storage.
dramatically slows archive searches.
creates multiple false hits in archive searches.
makes digests (where large numbers of messages are combined into one
email) very difficult to read.
costs Tom C a lot of extra money for the bandwidth he donates to the list.
makes the list harder and more expensive to retrieve with a dialup or
satellite connection.
>or it is it just that it bothers some people that a lot is left on ?
Let me rephrase that as "is it a social issue?"
Every factor listed above including the lettered list I began with
creates frustration and/or decreased utility and/or increased expense
for somebody; so ultimately these are all social costs. I'll just
elaborate on one of them:
The list is designed to be lean, fast and searchable. It's meant to
be able to help you when you're stuck on top of a mountain in Bogota
with a $6/minute satphone as well as sitting in your comfy chair with
a 20 mb/s fiber connection as I am right now. That doesn't mean
it's a gearhead's list; it's not. It's a community list, and your
satphone is going to take a hit with community stuff that's probably
not of great interest to you with your butt hanging off the mountain
in the rain. But it shouldn't take an unnecessary hit with bloat.
>I'll say what I sure do not appreciate..
>is a response to something with no indication of what or to whom the
>person writing is responding to.
Frustrating, isn't it?
Intelligent quoting (what I'm doing in this post) isn't free. It
takes effort and thought. That's a cost to you, a contribution you
make to good functioning of the list. The list benefits because your
reply will probably be better thought-out, it will be clear exactly
what points you're responding to, and there won't be a lot of wasted
"bandwidth" (which I'm co-opting to mean all the technical and social
costs I've mentioned). People will find your posts easy to read and
understand, and it will be clear to all that you care about the list
and its workings and are considerate of its members, even if they
don't articulate it to themselves. You benefit from the good
feelings generated thereby, and by the effect that your example has
on improving the general standard of posting from which you and
everyone else benefit.
Warm fuzzies all over. :)
Yours,
David
