I don't think anybody was trying to "tell" anyone to take the list
differently, merely sharing solutions that have made it easier for
them and offering suggestions. Many people are not aware that the
list can be received in digest form or that it does not have to be
received via e-mail at all.

Everyone has a little different angle on what they are looking for
here... some want to see only new boxes and clues, others are
interested in productive discussion and ideas, still others find all
of it of interest. That is the nature of an e-mail list. It really
is up to each individual member to find the way that works best for
them.

I am skeptical of imposing limits for number of posts, etc. In
instances where I have seen this implemented, it became "all about
business" -- discussions were seldom in depth and the group lost it's
personality. Very few posts received comments, suggestions or
replies because people were saving their allowed posts for new
threads of their own. It would also make it difficult to "catch up"
if you have been on vacation or just not able to get to the list for
a few days.

That's not to say there isn't room for improvement. As already
mentioned, more concise subject lines would help, and off-line
discussions between individuals or groups would also help.
Unfortunately Yahoo only provides a "reply" link, which replies to
the entire group. But if you open a message, and click on the
sender's email, the reply will be sent only to them.

As for losing valuable members... In my opinion no member is more
valuable than another, and if someone chooses to go, that it
certainly their option. I think Paddle2See just summed it up very
nicely in the previous message:

"However, I love the sport of letterboxing and I love reading about
people's adventures while letterboxing. So I'm willing to put up with
the foolishness and will just learn to ignore it. It certainly isn't
worth getting worked up over."


Deb


--- In letterbox-usa@y..., "A.D." wrote:
> Robin,
>
> You make a very good point. I don't think telling
> someone to either take the list in digest form or
> telling them to read it on the site is a valid
> solution as it seems that the problem created by a few
> shouldn't make the many resort to changing how they
> receive information.
>
> Other lists I belong to handle this problem in various
> ways. One list limits each list member to two posts a
> day. Makes one think long and hard how they choose to
> use their two posts and clears up list clutter. That
> is not a super-sized group- not much larger than this
> group is.
>
> This causes those whose posts really are private
> conversations and not pertinent to the grand scheme to
> take them to private email. To aid in this the list
> is set up so that when you hit the reply button the
> reply goes only to the poster you are replying to. I'm
> not sure that Yahoo offers any of this to yahoogroups
> listowners but it's easy to cut and paste an email
> addy.
>
> Others do as Sandy suggests(I believe it was Sandy, my
> apologies if I'm wrong) and use a sort of code to mark
> the messages so that those with limited time can scan
> through. Some of the headings might be:
>
> CHAT:,
> CLUES:,
> QUESTION: ,
> LOOKING FOR: > for>
> NEWBIE:--great introductions or newbie questions
>
> could go on and on and we'd probably want to have a
> majority consensus to agree on pertinent topic
> headings so that we don't have a bunch of "QUESTION:
> What does this topic heading mean?".
>
> Of course, all of this is a moot point because how the
> list is run is solely up to the list owner.
>
> Another suggestion for those who have formed "groups"
> who like to chat and discuss issues pertaining to
> their groups/area/mutual interests/ personal
> relationships- things generally that others might not
> care to have to wade through- is to make your own
> group. It's very easy to start a yahoogroup and you
> can make it as private or public as you like. This
> has been done on other occassions and so far that's
> helped those who have common interests, including but
> not exclusive to LB, to have a place to talk about
> those things in addition to LBing.
>
> My concern is that we are losing valuable members and
> their insight to the minutia due to the time crunch we
> all feel. Again, only my opinion- take it or leave it
> but at least consider the ideas within.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

> Of course, all of this is a moot point because how the
> list is run is solely up to the list owner.

Its run pretty autocratically, as we know :-)

Actually, list policy is that if you want to change the way the
list is run, you should to show me a poll that shows broad-based
support for your proposed change, then I'll decide ... and this
even works ... even something that I am totally against:
censoring non-members, has been implemented. (There are a couple
of sacred cows, like moderation and attachments, but even that
is negotiable, I suppose).

As for subject lines -- we've had the state abbr thing for two
years or so, and some people still don't use it. People are
free to propose more of these things, but I would question their
effectiveness, and whether there will be a mountain of messages
requesting explanations, just as there are now a mountain of
requests for the state abbr thing even tho it is _already_ requested
etiquette. I think further codes are totally unnecessary -- I can
always tell from the subject line and the poster what the general
gist of the message is, (tho I've been on the 'net for a long
time) ...

... but don't let me discourage implementation of this idea
if people think it will be profitable ...

As for the default reply-to:, I have no patience for people who
cannot look at who their mail is going to, and make a conscious
decision to change that if they don't like the default. Most
of the oldbies wanted the default reply-to: to go to the list.
If your message is better sent off-list, then do it. There are
mountains of messages on this list that, IMHO, should be off-list.
No matter how this is set, some people will want it set the other
way. And it is only a DEFAULT.

Some other comments --

Some people (who shall remain nameless :-)) send way too many messages.
Show some restraint ... I'm not going to enforce a two message
limit, tho. If you think someone sends too many messages, send them
a message off-list asking them to show restraint. The list is
supposed to be self-moderating ...

People overquote way too much. Don't topquote. Quote the piece
of the message you are replying to, and cut the rest. The reason
for this is that top quoting makes the digest much harder to
read, and wastes bandwidth. (and bandwidth is real -- there is
a limit to the archive space we have, and topquoting unnecessarily
eats away at this, with repeated content in the archive).

If your message is intended for the webmasters, just send it to
the webmasters. There are tons of these sorts of messages,
with WEBMASTERS in the subject line. That's like sending a message
to me on the list with RANDY in the subject line. IMHO this is
silly :-)

So many messages are followed immediately with another message, like,
whoops, I forgot the state in the subject line, or the bearing in
my clue is wrong. Please take the time to attempt to get your
message right the first time. Again, this sort of thing is the many
paying for the carelessness of the few.

BTW, all of this and more is spelled out on the page that is in
the trailer of every message. The fact that its there, and people
ignore it, says more on this topic than I ever could ...

Like I said, the list is self-moderating and self-organizing. There
isn't gonna be any sort of centralized policing of the etiquette ...

Cheers
Randy
List Manager

PS, you can thank Mischief for the lack of spam on the list, and all
the other hard work she's been doing with the list ...