I like the idea of two separate lists because I want to handle new
box announcements differently than talk list messages. I would like
to know about new boxes as they are posted, thus would elect to
receive e-mail on that one.

I would like to read the talk list as time allows, therefore would
elect to view messages online for that one. Currently with
everything going to one place, I didn't have the option of separating
them out. That's why I was thrilled to see the new lbox-announce
list with the new site. But apparently I was mistaken as to what the
purpose of the list was.

I think I am the only one who doesn't see it as a hassle to have
totally separate lists. I tried earlier to point out how it really
wouldn't be significantly more work to have both of them, but I don't
think it was understood, and I have resigned myself to go with
whatever the group concensus is.

It's not worth splitting hairs... sometimes the familiar is simply
easier because change is well, change.

Deb (SpringChick)


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Wes Garrison" wrote:
>
> Why does everyone think I'm buried?
> Hrm.
>
> To me, it makes sense to have a separate announce list.
> I see two scenarios:
> - You get the emails.
> - You read the list on the webpage.
>
> If you get the emails, then two lists are totally transparent to
you. You get
> the email, filter it where you want, and go on.
>
> If you read the list on the webpage, then I can see where two lists
would be a
> hassle. However, there's always the What's New page to check up
on. Maybe an
> addition allowing you to specify how many boxes you want to see, or
new boxes
> from a given state would alleviate the 'but what if more than 25
show up before
> I see the one I wanted to see?' question.
>
> In my view, two lists allows you to get one or the other. For
instance, maybe
> you only want new box announcements. Right now, you have to wade
through all
> the jabber to get the new box announcements, and there's no
guarantee that the
> person will even put the state in the title, so who knows if you'll
even see it?
>
> That's just this nerd's opinion.
>
> Wes

Altho' I've been one of the main whiny "keep it the same" voices,
I've gotta admit that I like the new announce group very much.
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lbox-announce). It formats beautifully
and it's so relentlessly automatic. I've been clicking that little
box at the bottom of all my "add a box" adventures.

Randy's idea of having the announce list post here to letterbox-usa
was intriguing. Do people think that would be a hassle?

Jay in CT

I think the announce list is just fine. However, I am wondering if all
those boxes are actually "new" or are they old boxes on the new list?
I only sent one box to the announce list since it was a brand new
shiny clue. Funhog

I agree with SpringChick's view. I would check the site for talk list
stuff and receive only new box announcements to my e-mail
account, and only to my letterboxing account at that. You can also
just search the announce list for your state's (or state of interest)
abbreviation if you don't want e-mail from either list. So, as long
as Everyone is informed that 2 lists exist, and what each one
means, I think having separated purpose lists are more efficient.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks,
Mark


> I like the idea of two separate lists because I want to handle
new
> box announcements differently than talk list messages. I
would like
> to know about new boxes as they are posted, thus would elect
to
> receive e-mail on that one.
>
> I would like to read the talk list as time allows, therefore would
> elect to view messages online for that one. Currently with
> everything going to one place, I didn't have the option of
separating
> them out. That's why I was thrilled to see the new
lbox-announce
> list with the new site. But apparently I was mistaken as to what
the
> purpose of the list was.
>
> I think I am the only one who doesn't see it as a hassle to have
> totally separate lists. I tried earlier to point out how it really
> wouldn't be significantly more work to have both of them, but I
don't
> think it was understood, and I have resigned myself to go with
> whatever the group concensus is.
>
> It's not worth splitting hairs... sometimes the familiar is simply
> easier because change is well, change.
>
> Deb (SpringChick)
>
>
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Wes Garrison"
wrote:
> >
> > Why does everyone think I'm buried?
> > Hrm.
> >
> > To me, it makes sense to have a separate announce list.
> > I see two scenarios:
> > - You get the emails.
> > - You read the list on the webpage.
> >
> > If you get the emails, then two lists are totally transparent to
> you. You get
> > the email, filter it where you want, and go on.
> >
> > If you read the list on the webpage, then I can see where two
lists
> would be a
> > hassle. However, there's always the What's New page to
check up
> on. Maybe an
> > addition allowing you to specify how many boxes you want to
see, or
> new boxes
> > from a given state would alleviate the 'but what if more than
25
> show up before
> > I see the one I wanted to see?' question.
> >
> > In my view, two lists allows you to get one or the other. For
> instance, maybe
> > you only want new box announcements. Right now, you have
to wade
> through all
> > the jabber to get the new box announcements, and there's no
> guarantee that the
> > person will even put the state in the title, so who knows if
you'll
> even see it?
> >
> > That's just this nerd's opinion.
> >
> > Wes

I think two lists is fine. I probably won't subscribe to the announce one
though because when I go to look for boxes, I just check 'what's new' and
the list for the area. I like the chat and usually skip through the new
clues postings, unless one catches my eye or gets talked about. Besides,
with 'instant' postings, "what's new" isn't really needed as much.

I do love the idea of the 'found' & 'not found' option of box lists. It
would make searching for the unfound boxes much easier.

Scoutdogs