Please....

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by willem_jan_markerink, Oct 8, 1997.

  1. Would the list maintainer be so kind to add some kind of prefix to the subject header? I mailed directly over a week ago, but nothing changed.
    Skipping this excessive "Medium Format Digest:...." from the subject header is nice, I can finally see what the message is about, but currently there is no way for me to filter mail from this list, and I refuse to filter on the body of the message, as that slows down filtering enormously. Right now it clogs my inbox, instead of being moved to the MFD folder.
    If this doesn't change shortly I will have to unsubcribe, and seeing the clumsy way to even post this short message makes me sick.
    This was supposed to be a mailinglist, not a clumsy web forum.

    <p>

    I am close to starting a *real* MF mailinglist myself....

    <p>

    Sigh, 10 minutes online instead of 1 second upload....great.
     
  2. I don't know what mail system you use, but I just filter on the 'from' e-mail address and anything from mfd@exeter.ac.uk goes to my MFD folder.

    <p>

    I'd noticed that the list isn't anywhere near as active as it used to be, and having just spent ages getting as far as being able to type in a reply (over 10 minutes on a 64kbit/s 'kilostream' link!) I can see why!

    <p>

    It's far too much hassle to post/reply to messages compared to a simple e-mail. I know that the old server had its problems, but I found it more user-friendly than the new web-based system.

    <p>

    Regards
    AndyG
     
  3. 1) WJM, I wonder why you didn't bother following up to the existing
    thread on this topic, from Nick:
    http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0003cw
    With a title like "The 'Subject' line in mail messages" it could
    have caught your attention :cool: Of course since your thesis is
    that the current system sucks, I'm not suprised you can't be
    bothered to use its threading features. <p>

    2) Any time non-computer professionals have an e-mail-based list,
    the S/N ratio drops massively, thanks to huge quotes and huge sigs.
    The fact that this system threads for us and doesn't promote quotes
    and sigs makes it READABLE. The EOS mailing list I met WJM on
    was so clogged with crap I couldn't make time for it. <p>

    3) What is taking you 10 minutes, anyway? In fact, I always have
    netscape and ppp running on my Linux box; I can get web pages
    immediately but actually have to log in to get mail! <p>

    4) How about some constructive comments about the current system?
    Would you like the option of selecting your own prefix (MFD or
    whatever) for incoming mail? Do you want a mail address to post
    to (so you can bury us in your huge sig and quoting)? These
    features could be added fairly easily I'm sure. If not by Phil
    then by me, for instance. My personal peeve is that it needs a
    flat-text<->html converter, allowing either input to read well on
    both mail and the web.<p>

    5) And lastly, if you can't read mail fast enough to avoid it clogging
    your inbox, try the digest version. Filter on sender to put it in
    a folder, or just count on 1 mail a day or a week. Trivial. <p>
     
  4. My only concern about the new format for MFD is that it doesn't seem to have as much traffic as it used to have. I receive MFD as a digest, thus I have no complaints about muultiple emailings per day as does WJM. Nevertheless, it has somehow lost some of its zing over the past few months.
     
  5. The changeover from a hand compiled digest to an automated web forum is a good thing. Indeed it is a very very good thing.

    <p>

    I am very grateful to the people who previously compiled the Medium Format Digest, and appreciate the vast amounts of tedious unpaid labour donated by them to the community of readers. This website forum lifts the burden from those organizers without reducing the usefulness to the readers. Asking the organizers to revert to the old format is like asking modern news organizations to revert to town criers.

    <p>

    The website format maintains the old tone of courtly civility through the agreement between the host, the moderators, and the contributors.

    <p>

    The use of common facilities enables readers of medium format to mingle with an expanded community of participants on photo.net and nature.net, and provides space for FAQs, essays, research notes.

    <p>

    The participation rate on the website is not signigicently less than the old digest. Most of that bulk was repeats of prior text added ahead of the most current comment. You can check this by adding up the the 'recent questions' and 'recent answers' and doing comparative statistics against a sampling of old digests.

    <p>

    A person could simulate the weekly nature of the old digest by signing on once a week and using the 'new questions' and 'new answers' features.

    <p>

    This website format allows immediate access to new questions and new answers, and this feature is a welcome enhancement. Despite the excellent service on the old digest the turnaround was weekly, and longer when vacation or work disrupted the efforts of the volunteer editors. Most people prefer their activities to proceed briskly rather than on the schedule of chess by mail.

    <p>

    Persons are, of course, welcome to restart the old digest format at great cost and aggravation, but I am guessing that most of us will stay here.

    <p>

    Cheers..
     

Share This Page

1111