__/ [ Hadron Quark ] on Thursday 17 August 2006 17:03 \__
> Au79 <au79@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>>> I know you probably mean well, but it is behaving more like spam than
>>> actual advocacy. It is getting in the way of seeing/finding discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you feel compelled to post [News] could you batch all your stories in
>>> one or two messages a day?
>>
>> I think that Roy's posts are appreciated by most users. I enjoy reading
>> them and feel that this is what advocacy is all about: information.
>>
>> You may think that advocacy is simply a shouting match between wintrolls,
>> but the way to win mind and hearts is still information.
>
> Which can be posted as a *single* article. No one says his posts dont
> have *some* interest, but the volume of posts is nothing more than spam.
How will you manage a hierarchy of threads? Hypothetical example:
Post X contains 20 news items. 5 are about Microsoft/Apple deficiencies, 5
are about open source, and 10 are related to Linux. If a person /x/ replies
to some bit about Apple and /y/ replies to some Linux item, how would the
reader find the path to the subject that interests him/her? The separation
facilitates structure. That's why all digests pertain to the same topic.
Those un/interested can ignore because it relates to the same theme.
I'm sorry to cause you inconvenience, but why don't you make all News-tagged
items invisible? Besides, I still believe that without on-topic discussion,
Winvocates-Linvocates head-butting is all that's left. Au79 contributes a
lot of on-topic material. In the past (before I started posting more
frequently), threads initiated by him were the most informative. The
remainder was cyclic and noisy (sometimes vulgar too).
|
|
