Kevin Grittner wrote: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall" > > list for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories. > > > > More generally, we already have most of the lists that you > > suggest, and we already know that people frequently don't find the > > most appropriate list for postings. I don't think getting rid of > > -general would help that in the least. The way to cut down on > > misposted traffic is to make the set of categories smaller and > > simpler, not to redouble our efforts to persuade people to use the > > same or even more categories. > > Well, redoubling our current efforts to direct people to more > specific lists would accomplish nothing, since doubling zero leaves > you with zero. The description of -general includes: > > | General discussion area for users. Apart from compile, acceptance > | test, and bug problems, most new users will probably only be > | interested in this mailing list > > Given that, the fact that -admin, -novice, -sql, and -performance > collectively get as many posts as -general suggests that people are, > in fact, making some effort to find a list which seems a good fit. > Perhaps if the description of -general was changed to suggest it > *was* a catch-all for posts which don't fit the other lists, things > would improve.
FYI, I usually email new people privately that cross-posting a question can cause the question to be ignored. They usually respond positively and avoid it in the future. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
