MathGroup Archive 2004

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

Search the Archive

Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg52144] Re: [mg52098] MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
  • From: Selwyn Hollis <sh2.7183 at>
  • Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 02:13:58 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

This discussion has made me wonder whether it isn't about time that 
MathGroup moved away from email altogether to a Web-based forum or blog 
format. Instead of having a single moderator who filters posts, a squad 
of regular members could serve as "police" to remove inappropriate 
posts. It could also allow for organization of posts into various 

It would take some effort up front, but it seems to me that it would be 
a general improvement and could ultimately result in less work for 

[Thanks for the desire to lower my work load, but that is not a particularly
 important factor - Moderator]

Just an idea...

Selwyn Hollis
(edit reply-to to reply)

On Nov 10, 2004, at 4:46 AM, David Park wrote:

> 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
> From: Peltio [mailto:peltio at]
To: mathgroup at
> "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: newbie question DSolve (revisited again)
  • Next by Date: Accumulating error counts?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings
  • Next by thread: Re: MathGroup /: Descriptive headings