I apologize for my late response to this thread. I've been on the road
constantly for two weeks and didn't see Richard's message.
Richard Sims said:
>Sorry, Preston, but your presumption to impose this "requirement" on
>ADSM-L members is bogus.
<sigh>
You obviously didn't read the post to which you are responding. It doesn't
even appear that you even read the first SENTENCE:
"Before posting to this forum, you need to understand that it is also
connected to a mailing list that existed before the forum, and that we must
respect that community's wishes."
I'm giving the ADSM-L mailing list props and telling the forum folks that
they need to respect the wishes of its community. I've received two types
of complaints since starting this: spam and non-threaded posts. I addressed
the spam issue, and am trying to work on the threading issue, but it's an
open-source team in three different countries, and I am only one customer of
a tool used by thousands of websites, so it's slow going.
In the meantime, I'm asking people who reply to forum postings to include
some of the relevant text in their post. I couldn't imagine how you could
object to that, but you did:
>there is NO need in a threaded discussion to voluminously include all past
>elements of the discussion, as a mounting accumulation. That's
>redundant, wastes Internet bandwidth, and is an untoward imposition on
>Marist's disk space in hosting this mailing list (at their expense).
Again you're showing me that you didn't read the post. I asked them only to
"select the appropriate amount of text needed for context." The funny
thing is that what I have suggested that they do will send far less
extraneous text than what YOU did, which was to top post and put my entire
message after yours. Still others replied to your message, which contained
message, with THEIR message. Can you step off the soapbox for a minute and
see that maybe I'm trying to HELP here?
>Your choice to feed ADSM-L postings to your income-producing
>commercial site
Now you have definitely have no idea what you're talking about. I pay for
this server to be hosted out of my own pocket, and have done so for 11 years
now without asking for a single dime from anyone using the site. Within the
last year, I was hit by the recession as much as everyone else (I was laid
off and now working part-time) and am doing everything I can to make ends
meet, so I have been experimenting with ads just to get the site to pay for
itself. I tried Google ads for a year or so, and am now trying something
else. Only once or twice in the last couple of years has ad revenue
exceeded my server bill, so how about dropping the "income-producing
commercial site" comments, will you?
>What you need to do is finally address the deficiencies of your site
>by embarking upon the Web development to organize incoming postings by
>thread, as other ADSM-L archiving sites do (adsm.org,
www.mail->archive.com/adsm-l AT vm.marist DOT edu
If you would bother taking a look at my site's TSM forum, you would see that
I organize incoming posts into threads just fine, thank you. I would argue
that it does it better than any email archiving system I've seen, and
certainly makes searching the postings easier. The problem occurs when I am
sending forum postings to the mailing list, and I am indeed working on that,
as I previously stated. But such a big project takes time.
I could do what ADSM.ORG did and create another forum that doesn't have
anything to do with the mailing list, but I felt that this would split the
community, or at the very least require people to watch yet another place
for questions and answers. I think all users of a given tool (in this cae
TSM) should have one place where they can go to ask their questions. The
list has been there for far longer than the ADSM.org forum, and I think that
the "one place" should be that list. But there are people that prefer the
forum style of communicating, so I found this interface that would connect
the two.
I'm just a guy trying to help people do backup.
|
