In a message dated 4/29/2003 5:17:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,
barbarastraub@earthlink.net writes:
> Hello Jay,
>
> I've put all of Chuck's and Irishtinker's letterboxes on the new web site.
>
> Both are planting new boxes and I've been having the announce group put it
> on the new list. However, I've also been having them send in an email to
> the talk list showing the new box and at the bottom, I've been putting:
> Note to Webmasters: This box has been added to the new website.
>
> The reason I've been doing this is that when I last looked, only 49 people
> had signed up for the announce list compared to over the 1000 members on
> the talk list.
>
> Is it ok for me to have them do it that way or is this causing more
> problems for you?
>
> Thanks and take care,
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
Hi, Barb! No, that's just right. I hope everyone still "announces" on the
main list just like we used to. I love reading them all and hope I don't have
to read yet another mailing list to keep up. I did the same thing with our
newest letterboxes planted last week. An added bonus: people can announce
their new boxes and also give the website address for them, since it won't
take weeks for a box to get posted to the LbNA site.
Thanks for asking: I'm going to forward this both to the big group and the
webmasters as well.
Jay in CT
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Future of LbNA Question
12 messages in this thread |
Started on 2003-04-29
Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: (drewclan@aol.com) |
Date: 2003-04-29 22:46:53 UTC-04:00
Re: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: (PNWEXPLR@aol.com) |
Date: 2003-04-29 22:52:33 UTC-04:00
> ... only 49 people
> had signed up for the announce list compared to over the 1000 members on
> the talk list.
I had signed up for the announce-list--but I took myself off because everyone
is businly entering their boxes, so announcements for each and every one
showed up in my e-mail. When the frenzy is over, I intend to sign up for the
announce-list again. I would guess other people are doing the same.
--Wild Woman
> had signed up for the announce list compared to over the 1000 members on
> the talk list.
I had signed up for the announce-list--but I took myself off because everyone
is businly entering their boxes, so announcements for each and every one
showed up in my e-mail. When the frenzy is over, I intend to sign up for the
announce-list again. I would guess other people are doing the same.
--Wild Woman
Re: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: Randy Hall (randy@mapsurfer.com) |
Date: 2003-04-29 23:06:44 UTC-04:00
> Hi, Barb! No, that's just right. I hope everyone still "announces" on the
> main list just like we used to. I love reading them all and hope I don't
> have to read yet another mailing list to keep up.
I've been thinking about this, and there are different ways to do this
a) have the announce list, and people manually announce on this list
(which I'll call the "discussion list") if they want to by hand (the way it
is now) -- pros: less clutter on this list and
more control, cons: more lists to monitor, more work for the poster
b) have the announce go to this list -- pros: one list to monitor, replies
to interesting clues posted follow on the discussion list -- cons: possible
massive increase of list volume (the announce mail could be formatted with
"CLUE" in the subject for those who filter mail, tho would there be much
more list volume? there would not be (assuming clue rate remains the same
as it has), but the volume _was_ to high to begin with, and a) in theory
should bring it down)
c) have the poster choose which list when creating the clue (presumably,
"run of the mill" clues would go to the announce list, while "cool" clues
could be posted to the discussion list ("run of the mill" and "cool"
in the eyes of the creator).
With any of these methods, the poster would have the option, of course,
of not posting to any list.
No guarantees that any (other than a, the status quo, would be implemented,
but I am interested in what people think. If people care, I'll start a
poll).
Cheers
[LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: SpringChick (letterbox@attbi.com) |
Date: 2003-04-30 10:20:21 UTC
I'm a little confused. I guess I thought the purpose of the lbox-
announce list associated with the new site was for announcing new
boxes. If we are going to continue to do it on this list
instead/also, why even have that list?
In the world as it was before last week, new boxes were posted to
this list for 2 reasons: First so the webmasters could pick them up
and add them to the LbNA site, and secondly to let everyone else know
about the new box. In the new world (once the transition has been
fully made), it is no longer necessary for webmasters to post clues
to the LbNA web site, and boxes can be announced on the new lbox-
announce list, thus negating the primary reasons for posting new
boxes to this list.
My feeling is it should be one or the other. Either we should
announce boxes on the new list exclusively, or if we choose to
continue to do it here, then don't even have the new list.
Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new list,
and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have to
keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
possibility that some will announce both places, which would
definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
monitoring both lists.
It's kind of like the situation with the separate HH list. Some use
it to post HH info, others post HH info on this list. Because there
is no consistent way of doing it, in order to see it all, you need to
follow both lists. Granted it is not such an issue with HH, because
the volume is minute in comparison to the volume of new boxes, but
the concept is the same.
As far as having to keep up with yet another list, if you are set up
for e-mail on both lists, there really isn't anything extra to do as
all of the messages land in your e-mail regardless of where they are
coming from. Even if you are reading this list online, you can still
set up for e-mail on the new one (there really isn't a reason to read
the new list online since you cannot reply or begin new discussion
threads). With the help of a couple of mail rules, you can send the
incoming e-mail messages off to a folder or even filter them by
state.
Deb (SpringChick)
...who really is not trying to cause confusion
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:
>
> > Hi, Barb! No, that's just right. I hope everyone
still "announces" on the
> > main list just like we used to. I love reading them all and hope
I don't
> > have to read yet another mailing list to keep up.
>
> I've been thinking about this, and there are different ways to do
this
>
> a) have the announce list, and people manually announce on this
list
> (which I'll call the "discussion list") if they want to by hand
(the way it
> is now) -- pros: less clutter on this list and
> more control, cons: more lists to monitor, more work for the poster
>
> b) have the announce go to this list -- pros: one list to monitor,
replies
> to interesting clues posted follow on the discussion list -- cons:
possible
> massive increase of list volume (the announce mail could be
formatted with
> "CLUE" in the subject for those who filter mail, tho would there be
much
> more list volume? there would not be (assuming clue rate remains
the same
> as it has), but the volume _was_ to high to begin with, and a) in
theory
> should bring it down)
>
> c) have the poster choose which list when creating the clue
(presumably,
> "run of the mill" clues would go to the announce list, while "cool"
clues
> could be posted to the discussion list ("run of the mill" and "cool"
> in the eyes of the creator).
>
> With any of these methods, the poster would have the option, of
course,
> of not posting to any list.
>
> No guarantees that any (other than a, the status quo, would be
implemented,
> but I am interested in what people think. If people care, I'll
start a
> poll).
>
> Cheers
announce list associated with the new site was for announcing new
boxes. If we are going to continue to do it on this list
instead/also, why even have that list?
In the world as it was before last week, new boxes were posted to
this list for 2 reasons: First so the webmasters could pick them up
and add them to the LbNA site, and secondly to let everyone else know
about the new box. In the new world (once the transition has been
fully made), it is no longer necessary for webmasters to post clues
to the LbNA web site, and boxes can be announced on the new lbox-
announce list, thus negating the primary reasons for posting new
boxes to this list.
My feeling is it should be one or the other. Either we should
announce boxes on the new list exclusively, or if we choose to
continue to do it here, then don't even have the new list.
Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new list,
and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have to
keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
possibility that some will announce both places, which would
definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
monitoring both lists.
It's kind of like the situation with the separate HH list. Some use
it to post HH info, others post HH info on this list. Because there
is no consistent way of doing it, in order to see it all, you need to
follow both lists. Granted it is not such an issue with HH, because
the volume is minute in comparison to the volume of new boxes, but
the concept is the same.
As far as having to keep up with yet another list, if you are set up
for e-mail on both lists, there really isn't anything extra to do as
all of the messages land in your e-mail regardless of where they are
coming from. Even if you are reading this list online, you can still
set up for e-mail on the new one (there really isn't a reason to read
the new list online since you cannot reply or begin new discussion
threads). With the help of a couple of mail rules, you can send the
incoming e-mail messages off to a folder or even filter them by
state.
Deb (SpringChick)
...who really is not trying to cause confusion
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall
>
> > Hi, Barb! No, that's just right. I hope everyone
still "announces" on the
> > main list just like we used to. I love reading them all and hope
I don't
> > have to read yet another mailing list to keep up.
>
> I've been thinking about this, and there are different ways to do
this
>
> a) have the announce list, and people manually announce on this
list
> (which I'll call the "discussion list") if they want to by hand
(the way it
> is now) -- pros: less clutter on this list and
> more control, cons: more lists to monitor, more work for the poster
>
> b) have the announce go to this list -- pros: one list to monitor,
replies
> to interesting clues posted follow on the discussion list -- cons:
possible
> massive increase of list volume (the announce mail could be
formatted with
> "CLUE" in the subject for those who filter mail, tho would there be
much
> more list volume? there would not be (assuming clue rate remains
the same
> as it has), but the volume _was_ to high to begin with, and a) in
theory
> should bring it down)
>
> c) have the poster choose which list when creating the clue
(presumably,
> "run of the mill" clues would go to the announce list, while "cool"
clues
> could be posted to the discussion list ("run of the mill" and "cool"
> in the eyes of the creator).
>
> With any of these methods, the poster would have the option, of
course,
> of not posting to any list.
>
> No guarantees that any (other than a, the status quo, would be
implemented,
> but I am interested in what people think. If people care, I'll
start a
> poll).
>
> Cheers
RE: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: John De Wolf (jdewolf@icrsurvey.com) |
Date: 2003-04-30 08:46:46 UTC-04:00
-----Original Message-----
From: SpringChick [mailto:letterbox@attbi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:20 AM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new list,
and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have to
keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
possibility that some will announce both places, which would
definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
monitoring both lists.
[JDW] If you send the SAME message to both lists (at the same time, i.e.
one message, "two" recipients), YahooGroups is smart enough to send only
one copy of the message to those who subscribe to both lists.
John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: SpringChick (letterbox@attbi.com) |
Date: 2003-04-30 13:16:50 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "John De Wolf"
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SpringChick [mailto:letterbox@a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:20 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
>
>
>
>
> Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
> cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
> preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new
list,
> and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have to
> keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
> possibility that some will announce both places, which would
> definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
> monitoring both lists.
>
>
>
>
> [JDW] If you send the SAME message to both lists (at the same time,
i.e.
> one message, "two" recipients), YahooGroups is smart enough to send
only
> one copy of the message to those who subscribe to both lists.
>
>
They would have to be titled exactly the same, and since the message
coming from the lbox-announce list is auto-generated and the message
to this list would be manually posted, I doubt that would be the case.
SpringChick
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SpringChick [mailto:letterbox@a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:20 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
>
>
>
>
> Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
> cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
> preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new
list,
> and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have to
> keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
> possibility that some will announce both places, which would
> definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
> monitoring both lists.
>
>
>
>
> [JDW] If you send the SAME message to both lists (at the same time,
i.e.
> one message, "two" recipients), YahooGroups is smart enough to send
only
> one copy of the message to those who subscribe to both lists.
>
>
They would have to be titled exactly the same, and since the message
coming from the lbox-announce list is auto-generated and the message
to this list would be manually posted, I doubt that would be the case.
SpringChick
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: John De Wolf (jdewolf@icrsurvey.com) |
Date: 2003-04-30 09:56:42 UTC-04:00
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SpringChick [mailto:letterbox@a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:20 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
>
> Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
> cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
> preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new
list,
> and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have to
> keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
> possibility that some will announce both places, which would
> definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
> monitoring both lists.
>
>
> [JDW] If you send the SAME message to both lists (at the same time,
i.e.
> one message, "two" recipients), YahooGroups is smart enough to send
only
> one copy of the message to those who subscribe to both lists.
>
>
They would have to be titled exactly the same, and since the message
coming from the lbox-announce list is auto-generated and the message
to this list would be manually posted, I doubt that would be the case.
SpringChick
>
[JDW] Actually, there are a couple of list I'm on where it's worked like
a charm for at least 6 months, so I can't imagine why it wouldn't work
here. Maybe someone who's on both lists can confirm?
[JDW]
[JDW] Thanks,
[JDW]
[JDW] John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> From: SpringChick [mailto:letterbox@a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:20 AM
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
>
> Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
> cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
> preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new
list,
> and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have to
> keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
> possibility that some will announce both places, which would
> definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
> monitoring both lists.
>
>
> [JDW] If you send the SAME message to both lists (at the same time,
i.e.
> one message, "two" recipients), YahooGroups is smart enough to send
only
> one copy of the message to those who subscribe to both lists.
>
>
They would have to be titled exactly the same, and since the message
coming from the lbox-announce list is auto-generated and the message
to this list would be manually posted, I doubt that would be the case.
SpringChick
>
[JDW] Actually, there are a couple of list I'm on where it's worked like
a charm for at least 6 months, so I can't imagine why it wouldn't work
here. Maybe someone who's on both lists can confirm?
[JDW]
[JDW] Thanks,
[JDW]
[JDW] John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: SpringChick (letterbox@attbi.com) |
Date: 2003-04-30 14:29:54 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "John De Wolf"
wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SpringChick [mailto:letterbox@a...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:20 AM
> > To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
> >
> > Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
> > cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
> > preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new
> list,
> > and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have
to
> > keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
> > possibility that some will announce both places, which would
> > definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
> > monitoring both lists.
> >
> >
> > [JDW] If you send the SAME message to both lists (at the same
time,
> i.e.
> > one message, "two" recipients), YahooGroups is smart enough to
send
> only
> > one copy of the message to those who subscribe to both lists.
> >
> >
> They would have to be titled exactly the same, and since the
message
> coming from the lbox-announce list is auto-generated and the
message
> to this list would be manually posted, I doubt that would be the
case.
>
> SpringChick
> >
>
>
>
> [JDW] Actually, there are a couple of list I'm on where it's worked
like
> a charm for at least 6 months, so I can't imagine why it wouldn't
work
> here. Maybe someone who's on both lists can confirm?
>
> [JDW]
>
> [JDW] Thanks,
>
> [JDW]
>
> [JDW] John
>
It was my understanding from your first post that it would have to
be "one message with two recipients." As the message coming from the
lbox-announce list would be an auto-generated message and the
letterbox-usa list message would be a manual post made by the
submitter, how could they be the same message?
Unless of course, the new LbNA site was modified to auto-send
the "announce" message to both lists. This would work, but what
would be the purpose of having two lists if all of the messages on
the lbox-announce list were being sent to this list anyway?
If we want the new box announcements to still show up here on this
list, then perhaps the other list is not needed.
SpringChick
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SpringChick [mailto:letterbox@a...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:20 AM
> > To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
> >
> > Neither way is perfect. As Randy pointed out, there are pros and
> > cons to both. If it is left to each person to choose their
> > preference and some are announcing their boxes only to the new
> list,
> > and others are announcing only to the old list, you really have
to
> > keep up with both lists to see everything. And then there is the
> > possibility that some will announce both places, which would
> > definitely create an increase in message/mail volume for those
> > monitoring both lists.
> >
> >
> > [JDW] If you send the SAME message to both lists (at the same
time,
> i.e.
> > one message, "two" recipients), YahooGroups is smart enough to
send
> only
> > one copy of the message to those who subscribe to both lists.
> >
> >
> They would have to be titled exactly the same, and since the
message
> coming from the lbox-announce list is auto-generated and the
message
> to this list would be manually posted, I doubt that would be the
case.
>
> SpringChick
> >
>
>
>
> [JDW] Actually, there are a couple of list I'm on where it's worked
like
> a charm for at least 6 months, so I can't imagine why it wouldn't
work
> here. Maybe someone who's on both lists can confirm?
>
> [JDW]
>
> [JDW] Thanks,
>
> [JDW]
>
> [JDW] John
>
It was my understanding from your first post that it would have to
be "one message with two recipients." As the message coming from the
lbox-announce list would be an auto-generated message and the
letterbox-usa list message would be a manual post made by the
submitter, how could they be the same message?
Unless of course, the new LbNA site was modified to auto-send
the "announce" message to both lists. This would work, but what
would be the purpose of having two lists if all of the messages on
the lbox-announce list were being sent to this list anyway?
If we want the new box announcements to still show up here on this
list, then perhaps the other list is not needed.
SpringChick
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: Judi Lapsley Miller (judi@psychokiwi.org) |
Date: 2003-04-30 10:48:24 UTC-04:00
> Unless of course, the new LbNA site was modified to auto-send
> the "announce" message to both lists. This would work, but what
> would be the purpose of having two lists if all of the messages on
> the lbox-announce list were being sent to this list anyway?
I guess some folk may just want announcements and not all the chit-chat? I
kind-of like the idea that announcements could go to both lists - you'd only
subscribe to the announcement list if you wanted only announcements. But I'd
suggest that the Reply-to be set to to the main list so discussion goes
there (currently replies to "announcements" results in the culprit being
unsubscribed - cute!).
My $0.01
Judi
> the "announce" message to both lists. This would work, but what
> would be the purpose of having two lists if all of the messages on
> the lbox-announce list were being sent to this list anyway?
I guess some folk may just want announcements and not all the chit-chat? I
kind-of like the idea that announcements could go to both lists - you'd only
subscribe to the announcement list if you wanted only announcements. But I'd
suggest that the Reply-to be set to to the main list so discussion goes
there (currently replies to "announcements" results in the culprit being
unsubscribed - cute!).
My $0.01
Judi
[LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: SpringChick (letterbox@attbi.com) |
Date: 2003-04-30 15:28:00 UTC
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Judi Lapsley Miller"
wrote:
> > Unless of course, the new LbNA site was modified to auto-send
> > the "announce" message to both lists. This would work, but what
> > would be the purpose of having two lists if all of the messages on
> > the lbox-announce list were being sent to this list anyway?
>
> I guess some folk may just want announcements and not all the chit-
chat? I
> kind-of like the idea that announcements could go to both lists -
you'd only
> subscribe to the announcement list if you wanted only
announcements. But I'd
> suggest that the Reply-to be set to to the main list so discussion
goes
> there (currently replies to "announcements" results in the culprit
being
> unsubscribed - cute!).
>
> My $0.01
>
> Judi
That is an idea I hadn't considered... that some may want ONLY the
new box announcements (I'm with Doublesaj there and like reading
things like how LizardButt got his name, etc.), but I'm sure others
would just as soon not have the chit-chat. In that case I can see
the benefit of maintaining both lists. And if the "announce to
group" option could be set to send both places, it would still be
auto-generated all around and would ensure no matter which list you
are reading, you would see the new box posts, without having to
monitor both lists.
SpringChick
> > Unless of course, the new LbNA site was modified to auto-send
> > the "announce" message to both lists. This would work, but what
> > would be the purpose of having two lists if all of the messages on
> > the lbox-announce list were being sent to this list anyway?
>
> I guess some folk may just want announcements and not all the chit-
chat? I
> kind-of like the idea that announcements could go to both lists -
you'd only
> subscribe to the announcement list if you wanted only
announcements. But I'd
> suggest that the Reply-to be set to to the main list so discussion
goes
> there (currently replies to "announcements" results in the culprit
being
> unsubscribed - cute!).
>
> My $0.01
>
> Judi
That is an idea I hadn't considered... that some may want ONLY the
new box announcements (I'm with Doublesaj there and like reading
things like how LizardButt got his name, etc.), but I'm sure others
would just as soon not have the chit-chat. In that case I can see
the benefit of maintaining both lists. And if the "announce to
group" option could be set to send both places, it would still be
auto-generated all around and would ensure no matter which list you
are reading, you would see the new box posts, without having to
monitor both lists.
SpringChick
Re: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: Randy Hall (randy@mapsurfer.com) |
Date: 2003-04-30 17:45:12 UTC-04:00
> I'm a little confused.
Sorry if that is my fault :-) (I'll try to be clearer)
The good thing about 2 lists is people can opt out of the chatter,
opt out of the mountain of clue posts, or mix and match.
The bad things are two lists to check, no discussion of cool
clues (or the creator has to announce to 2 places), or fear on the
part of the creator that their clue is not reaching as large an
audience as is possible.
Many comments can be made about all of this, probably too many. I, for
one, personally enjoy announcing each of my clues with a different message
(and I will continue to use this list regardless of what happens in the end).
In any case, I think the solution that covers most of the wall with one
bucket of paint is --
When creating a clue, have two options ("post to announce list", "post to
discussion list"), one of which, both of which, or neither of which can
be selected by the creator. On the "post to discussion list", a free
form text field and subject line would also be available which will become
part of the message (it would be a little mail client, not a big deal).
Wes is busy so I'm not going to ask him to do more work, just my 2 cents.
As for setting the reply to on the announce list posts to be the discussion
list, that is a good idea, but I'm not sure if yahoo's mail server will
go for it. (I also don't think it is as good an idea as mine, but it is
trivial to implement). If I have time, I will test this, or someone else
is free to (anyone with a normal mail client can try this test).
Cheers
Re: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
From: Jana J. Riska (cadenza74@earthlink.net) |
Date: 2003-04-30 23:06:25 UTC-07:00
think I'm in the minority. I like the two lists because I want the chatter
and not having to read all the announcements. Only rarely is an
announcement in an area I can get to without days of driving or a flight, so
I prefer to check the map and get the daily summary of announcements. I
like the two lists so that I can hear the chatter and still feel connected
to the LB world even though I am the only letterboxer for hundreds of miles
(literally).
Cadenza
From: "Judi Lapsley Miller"
Reply-To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:48:24 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
> Unless of course, the new LbNA site was modified to auto-send
> the "announce" message to both lists. This would work, but what
> would be the purpose of having two lists if all of the messages on
> the lbox-announce list were being sent to this list anyway?
I guess some folk may just want announcements and not all the chit-chat? I
kind-of like the idea that announcements could go to both lists - you'd only
subscribe to the announcement list if you wanted only announcements. But I'd
suggest that the Reply-to be set to to the main list so discussion goes
there (currently replies to "announcements" results in the culprit being
unsubscribed - cute!).
My $0.01
Judi
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
and not having to read all the announcements. Only rarely is an
announcement in an area I can get to without days of driving or a flight, so
I prefer to check the map and get the daily summary of announcements. I
like the two lists so that I can hear the chatter and still feel connected
to the LB world even though I am the only letterboxer for hundreds of miles
(literally).
Cadenza
From: "Judi Lapsley Miller"
Reply-To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:48:24 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: [LbNA] Re: Future of LbNA Question
> Unless of course, the new LbNA site was modified to auto-send
> the "announce" message to both lists. This would work, but what
> would be the purpose of having two lists if all of the messages on
> the lbox-announce list were being sent to this list anyway?
I guess some folk may just want announcements and not all the chit-chat? I
kind-of like the idea that announcements could go to both lists - you'd only
subscribe to the announcement list if you wanted only announcements. But I'd
suggest that the Reply-to be set to to the main list so discussion goes
there (currently replies to "announcements" results in the culprit being
unsubscribed - cute!).
My $0.01
Judi
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]