Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2004
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2004

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg52098] Re: [mg52075] Re: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
  • From: "David Park" <djmp at earthlink.net>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:46:13 -0500 (EST)
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Peltio,

I know this sounds like a good idea, a classifier's and organizer's dream.
But I don't think it is a good idea. People already complain that it takes
too long for them to get a posting up and a reply.  That's the price of
having a moderated news group, which I think IS a good idea. So now they are
going to send a posting and about a day later get this bureaucratic message?
Then they have to wait another day to get their posting up?

In the old days one could pull off a highway and park in front of a store or
resturant. Today you have to follow a maze of curving passage ways with lots
of curbs to keep you in line. It may look great on the drawing board or to
the birds but the designers don't think of how it looks to the driver.
Categorization of postings may look great from the far view but think of how
it looks from the viewpoint of the new poster who is deeply immeshed in his
particular problem and isn't thinking about nice schemes of organizing
postings?

And anyway, Steve has enough to contend with as it is.

David Park
djmp at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/




From: Peltio [mailto:peltio at twilight.zone]
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net


"DrBob" wrote

>Yikes, that's complicated!! It collapses of its own weight, I think.

Well, I was not given the gift of synthesis, that's true  : ))).
But the mechanism is not as complicated as it may at first seem.
Here's a sample of the mail to be sent to non complying users [1][2]:
______________________________________________
    Dear Mathgroup User,
    Posting to the MathGroup requires the use of a tag.
    Please choose one among the following ten cathegories:
        [Frontend] [Kernel] [I/O] [Programming] [Symbolics]
        [Numerics] [Graphics] [Application] [Package] [Newbie]
    (to see how to identify a category for your problem please visit
        www.xxxxx.xx )
    If you are still uncertain as to which category assign your post,
    you could use the 'wildcard' tag:
        []
    that allows other posters to add their own cathegorization.
    Posts without a tag will be automatically tagged with [].
_____________________________________________

The site www.xxxxx.xx will give details on how to make a problem fit into a
certain category, and will instruct the user on how to add subcathegories.
The fact that subcathegories are only 'suggested' and can be 'user-defined'
makes this scheme almost free from coercion.
Posters who don't care to add a tag can still keep up with their attitude:
the wildcard [] is claiming only two characters and can also be used as a
filter for generic spam, and as a placeholder to avoid multiples Re:'s. [3]

But, as I said, I've yet to see a NG where tagging is carried out
consistently. I wonder if the Mathgroup would be such a group. : ]

cheers,
Peltio
[1] THe moderator could set up a bot to send this letter only once for each
e-mail.
[2] The cathegories are only tentative, here.
[3] A post like "RE: Re: R: Fw: [] I can't get it done" can be easily
coerced to "Re: [] I can't get it done". The room for the wildcard tag
is no more hassle than a double Re:












  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Adding Vectors -- Newbie help please
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: NonlinearFit problem
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
  • Next by thread: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings