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: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg52112] Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
  • From: "Peltio" <peltio at twilight.zone>
  • Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:52:16 -0500 (EST)
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

I wrote this /last/ post just to clarify a few points that were not clear
enough in my previous exposition. I do not want to give the impression I
think this is the best way to handle the group, nor that this is the best
tagging scheme possibile.

"David Park" wrote

>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?

Nope.
Every post without a tag will be automatically tagged with the short
'uncertain' tag [] and forwarded to the NG without any delay, just as it
happens today.
The poster will get the bureaucratic message only once. If he intends to
conform to the group he will add a tag in his next postings (or whenever he
feels the problem deserves a tag). If he does not care, nothing happens,
apart from having a [] prepended to his object. [*]
Repliers can act the same way: those who feel the message can be categorized
will add a tag, those who don't will leave it as it is. Perhaps the last
sentence should read: "Posts without a tag will be automatically tagged with
[]. Your post has already been forwarded to the group with this tag; you
do not have to send another post now."

>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?

You are perfectly right. And that's the role of the 'uncertain' tag. Giving
posters the freedom not to tag their messages, and giving repliers the
freedom to tag their replies, leaving the OP's subject unaltered (this will
simplify a later search with Google, for example).
And then there are only ten cathegories, big enough to allow for an easy
categorization.

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

I started from the premise that a form of tagging was to be suggested.
Obviously this is only a lazy poster's view. The moderator can (and surely
will) have a different perception of the difficulties involved in the
implementation of such a scheme.
After all the inherent anarchy of the net can only let moderators suppress
unwanted behaviors. Forcing an attitude is another story altogether. : )

[*]The use of the wildcard [] tag can also be of aid in removing multiple
Re's, and the need for a tag can help the moderator in filtering out part of
the spam.

cheers,
Peltio
invalid address in reply-to. crafty demunging required to mail me.






  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: newbie question DSolve
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: newbie question DSolve (revisited)
  • Previous by thread: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
  • Next by thread: Redefining the minus operator