I have followed all of the postings on this forum with great interest and admiration. I have also gone to the Coupers.com web site, sometimes back and forth and sometimes printing out "threads" for study. I've used the Search feature also. I have not gone through all the archives back to Nov. 1997, yet. From this I've come to certain conclusions and offer several thoughts, for what they're worth.
To make it clear where I'm coming from, though, I need to make these
observations. I've had some experience with computers and the Internet.
I think that the establishment of the many fine Coupe Web Sites and this
unique Forum is a very significant positive step in the history of
Couping. Skip Carden emphasized these thoughts in the Jan '99 issue of
Coupe Capers. This site is particularly important because Tom had the
Courage to set up the forum and archive it. Archives take web space and
web space costs money, not to mention maintenance costs in time and money.
It's my belief that the many fine contributions to this Forum have lasting
benefits and ought to be preserved. Much time, effort and thought has been
given to creating them. True, some postings are perishable, such as
arrangements to meet at a fly-in after the event or maybe For Sale items,
etc. However, to be of lasting value it must be possible to find
information
in the Archives.
I do not know how Coupers.net links to Majordomo and I do not know how
the archive function works. But all search functions share these actions:
they set up an index; they search that index; and they sort. The Coupers
archive indexes on the Subject and, however it does so, it demands the
rigid discipline in naming Subjects that all computer systems do. And that
is the primary area I want to discuss here.
In looking at the various postings to the Forum it seems to me that they
fall into four categories:
1. New Posting - New Subject
2. New Posting - Old Subject
3. Reply to New Posting, including replies to replies
4. New Posting in response to non-thread comment
made in 1. or 3. above.
Take the first and third examples. It is essential from a thread and
finding standpoint that the person posting a new subject pick an
appropriate name for that subject and that every person responding
to that posting use the same subject exactly as the originator spelled
it. This lets the Search function establish the continuity "thread"
and lets someone later searching the subject for info find it with all
it's replies to-gether. But picking that "appropriate" subject is
actually the hardest part. To give a couple of examples. Butch made a
posting on 6/27/99 on carb icing in which he named the subject "O200".
In the subsequent responses the subject name was changed a number of
times and each time the computer treated it as a new posting so no
continous thread was established. I was one of them. I changed the
O200 to O-200, so a new posting! Also, the subject of "O200" was
possibly too broad from a finding standpoint. "Carb Icing" might have
been a better subject, yet that might not actually be his problem.
Here's a current example. On 7/10/98 a posting of "I need help" was made
relating to low oil pressure. There were great responses to the posting
and the subject of "Re: I need help" was used and the archive established
the thread perfectly. One response with a subject of "FW: I need help"
did not get in the thread. But how would anyone seeking info on oil
pressure find it under the subject of "I need help"? But it does seem to
me that the response using the exact subject name used by the originator,
prefaced with "Re:" makes sense. If it gets lost it will be recognized
as a response and possibly reconciled. Many, or maybe most, recognize the
need to respond accurately. But the problem of selecting an appropriate
subject, to me at least, remains a major one. It obviously must be keyed
to what the search function can accomodate both from a simple indexing
standpoint and for more sophisticated searches. Also it must be
recognizable and useful to Coupers using it. For example in the case
mentioned above it seems to me that "oil pressure" might be appropriate.
With regard to a New Posting to an Old Subject I don't know how the
archive/search function works. An example would be where an individual
posted an inquiry on a subject that had been covered in the past, with
or without researching the archives. Another example would be where
someone had posted a problem which had elicited a number of responses.
Much later they solved the problem and wanted to post that solution(very
important in my opinion). This linking would seem important. But, in
addition to using the same subject it would of course seem sensible to
also link it with a simple recap.
The fourth example I cited was a "New Posting in response to a non-thread
comment". This would usually occur where someone responding to an original
posting would bring up something interesting enough of itself but not
relevant to the original subject. Often this would be pursued on a
one-on-one basis, but if someone thought it of enough common interest
they could post it as a new posting with a new and different subject.
In doing so they would have to create a "thread" by first quoting the
source matter and then responding.
In summary I think that a consistency in posting to a subject ought to
be a relatively simple thing to achieve. Developing a set of major
subject headings for use is quite another matter, if in fact they are
thought to be needed. I also think that a simple marker could be devised
that would eliminate perishible items from the Archives after an interval.
I do think that there are others on this Forum far more knowledgeable
on this overall subject than I.
I hope that in bringing up this subject I haven't "Tugged on Supermans
Cloak" or "Tried to Tell Noah How to Build an Ark". If so it wasn't
intentional.
Cliff......
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
