On 31/03/2016 09:15, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
imho, what kind of emails are spam is something subjective and everyone on
these lists might have a different opinion.
However, for most people a spam is a spam, no matter how long, short,
well-written or structured the email is.
Whatever we decide one thing that would definitely help it to make all
these emails easier to filter out (or in).
One way is to *require* specific keywords on the subject (e.g. [CFP]).
That's a good shout, Dimitris. I'll investigate whether our smarts are
smart enough to be able to block a CfP as spam *unless* it has [CfP] in
the subject line.,
If all the major mailing lists have such common requirements, eventually
everyone will use these conventions and people can create more efficient
filters on their email clients.
Cheers,
Dimitris
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Phil Archer <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks everyone for the replies so far and for the interesting discussion.
In an ideal world, yes, we'd build a system that supported the CfP and
included everything from venue to chairs to topics, to the PC and a special
place for Sarven to keep all his PDFs (sic). Oh and it would publish the
papers, link to the datasets, extract all the info and expose it as LD yada
yada.
And then... we'd have a load of spam saying "look, I uploaded my CfP to
the master system."
Seriously, a structured system for conference and workshop materials would
be terrific and, yes, we should do it. I am embarrassed that dog food is
entirely absent from my own workshop CfPs. Count W3C/ERCIM in for a project
proposal to fix that.
But, for now, my dichotomy is not false. Do you want CfPs on these lists
or not? The survey results to date are pointing in a specific direction,
which is very helpful.
Thanks
Phil.
On 30/03/2016 20:31, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
A simple plain text email works just fine.
Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right
now.
Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words
would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this.
Some common practices, like listing the whole PC
and the conference's excellent reputation are just not helpful.
And that is what, I believe, a mailing list should focus on:
conveying helpful information to readers.
I think it's important to say this in the discussion,
because now it's presented as a false dichotomy:
either we want CfPs or not.
Maybe the more interesting question is:
how can we have better CfPs that are actually helpful?
Best,
Ruben
--
Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
--
Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
