Rick Archer wrote: > Judy posted 10 times today, so she joins Shemp in moderation land. No posts > for her until Friday. Curtis overposted by one. Light slap on the wrist. > Even though everyone but New Morning is opposed to it, I'm seriously > thinking of trying the 35 posts-per-week system. You can shoot your wad in > one day and we won't hear from you for a week, or you can pace yourself. > Either way, the daily average should be about the same. I overpost myself > some days, and other days don't post at all. So this way I wouldn't violate > a rule I'm supposed to enforce. If we try this, we'll start it Friday night > at midnight, so weekend warriors will have free reign. My email client > (Outlook) shows me the total of posts, if I sort by posters' names, so it > won't be hard for me to keep track of. Maybe we'll try it for a week, then > reevaluate. > > > You're still using "Lookout!" (That's what Microsofties call it). :)
35 posts per week is better than 5 a day since some people will post in spurts and may find on a certain day that they want to respond to more than 5 posts and maybe none the next day. It's the closest thing to rollover posts without the effort. By observing the way people post here I assume that the majority are somewhat computer illiterate. I notice that most post in order so if you reply to the head of the topic it may ignored but read if you post in some extending chain. Interesting paradigm that I also don't see on other groups.
