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.