Maggie, [M] wrote: > You know Allie, I thought about this subject line before naming it > such and since the problem lies with the *unread* folder, that's what > I named it in the subject line. Paul and Thomas didn't seem to have > any problem with the subject line as they gave very plausible > solutions to my problem. Others on the list seem to have as much > intelligence as those two, therefore, I do not accept your trout!
Ok. I woke this morning to see this and had mixed feelings about it. I intended at first not to respond, but as usual, I think the best response comes after some thought before typing and I think I'm finished thinking about it. The thinking time allowed me to stop reflecting too much on how *I* felt after reading the innuendo attacking my intelligence after sending a moderatorial note, and instead, try to see things from your point of view. As usual, my intentions as moderator are good as always. I really tread lightly, but firmly when doing this sort of thing. It's really been challenging trying to make the list run in a way that's comfortable for the membership and yet not get in the way of the members too much. It's with this spirit that I hope my interjections are being read, though I didn't get that impression from your response to this last one. :) I guess my interjection on the quality of your message subject comes as a surprise, especially since I've never really done so before on this list. I guess it's bad form on my part to start moderating message subjects on the list without officially warning members that I'll be doing so. For that I apologize. Anyway, inadequacy of message subjects was the discussion point on TBBETA quite recently. I don't know if you're subscribed there. Adequate subject headers are a vital part to making it comfortable for our members to more easily see what messages are about and to better do searches. It also helps the busy members, especially the developers, to quickly see what threads they'll read first or at all, before moving on. I agreed with this and realized that we've never really moderated this important aspect of posting, though we moderate the use of cut marks. :) I decided we really aught to moderate inadequate subjects when seen. This has been well received on TBBETA. When we moderate top posting, this doesn't mean that we're assuming the poster didn't think about their posting format. In fact, top posting is often done with a lot of thought behind it. The same applies to your message subject. We *never* think that those who infringe list rules do so because they're not intelligent enough to know better. In fact, like top posting, we do know that there's a lot of deliberate, and in most instances, innocent and reasoned thought behind the infringements. The thing is that when we explain why a list rule exists, most do see the reason behind our rules even though they may not have thought about it that way before. Additionally, many active members, including myself, never really looked at message subjects since we read most, if not all, threads. We moderate top posting and excessive quoting but very few actually publicly complain about the posts that infringe rules when seen. So your comment that others don't seem to have a problem with it doesn't really indicate that your subject was seen as inadequate or not. Finally, formulating subjects does is not a black and white thing. It requires judgement and experience. Formulating a message subject for private correspondence is different from doing so for a busy list. From discussion, it would seem that those who rely on good message subjects wish for a format like: <what area in TB! is the query about> <what about that area> You could either do it in that format, for example: BayesIt: Why is my spam getting through despite training? or BayesIt: Where do I get the latest build or Virtual Folders: Problem with updating message list. Or you could do it like Spam still getting through despite training BayesIt or Where do I get the latest BayesIt build or Problems updating Virtual Folder message lists. I'm sure we can all see that those subjects are more meaningful than just: Bayesit or Virtual Folders or A Question This is all that I'm moderating. -- -=[ Allie Martin ]=- List Moderator and fellow end-user PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com
pgpY7YHZ8yShj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________ Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
