Re: [Fwd: Re: Value of this list: one perspective]

[Amy Kent <akent -at- ACTCONSULTING -dot- COM>]

Fellow techwhirlers,

I agree 100%.  There are too many postings along similar threads that say
the same thing over and over again.  I delete more than half of the messages
I receive before even reading them.

Maybe we should limit the number of postings on a particular issue (5-10)
and then have all responses directed to the authors of that theme so they
can continue their discussion in smaller groups.  Others can alway get in on
the discussion by viewing the archives and sending messages to those have
contributed to a particular topic.

Amy Kent
Jacksonville, FL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahel Anne Bailie [SMTP:rbailie -at- NEWBRIDGE -dot- COM]
> Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 11:52 AM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      [Fwd: Re: Value of this list: one perspective]
>
> Fellow techwhirlers,
>
> The recent thread about the use of this list made me consider what I
> value
> enough to put up with 50 to 100 messages daily. Certainly, the
> philosophical
> issues interest me most, but these weren't what I saw when I looked in
> my Tech
> Writers email folder to see which files I'd saved.
>
> The list, it turns out, is valuable to me when I come across tips and
> tricks
> that I can find out about elsewhere at a cost of hours of internet
> search time
> (installing Office 97 and 95 on the same machine), broad and specific
> "how to"
> sequences (tips for a 45-minute session on communications, getting PDFs
> to open
> at a particular page), new concepts (diagramming sentences), business
> solutions
> (storing archives on CDs), references to books I'd like to buy, the
> "why" of
> technologies (why screen captures are blurry when ... ), and my
> favourite, Dick
> Margulis' response to "bulleted lists" which turned out to be a much
> larger
> explanation of document design.
>
> Discussions of broader issues in technical communication are certainly
> of
> interest, but generally I don't tend to keep those threads. Once I've
> absorbed
> the concept, I trust I will find references in the archives.
>
> While I wouldn't miss the blatantly nuisance posts dropping off, I
> suspect many
> of us find the nuts-and-bolts questions and explanations helpful, if
> only to
> reassure us we're not the only ones wrestling a particular technology
> for the
> best quality or fastest output possible.
>
> Rahel Bailie
> Vancouver, BC
>
>
> From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=
> =
>


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=