Problem of multiple postings (CAROL SCHAAFSMA) Marcia Tuttle 15 Apr 1992 13:40 UTC
---------------------------- Text of forwarded message ----------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:23:41 HST From: Carol Schaafsma <CAROLS@UHUNIX> Subject: Re: The problem of multiple postings * ---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -------------------- * Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:20:21 EDT * From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@PRINCETON.EDU> * Subject: The problem of multiple postings * * > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:33:00 EDT * > Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving, * > and Access" <VPIEJ-L@VTVM1.BITNET> * > From: Bill Drew -- Serials Librarian <DREWWE%SNYMORVA.bitnet@VTVM1.CC.VT.E * > * > Is there any reason why the discussion of referreeing of ejournal must * > be carried out on four different lists? Why does it need to be on * > PACS-L as well as the lists specializing in ejournals? How many * > people are truly unique to just one of the four? I subscribe to all * > four because the material interests me not because I want to see the * > same item four times. Please consider this comment. * * The problem of what to do about multiple lists with overlapping but * non-identical subscriberships and subject matter is simply not solved, * and I would be interested in a solution too. Here are the factors * involved: * * If one has information on a topic that is of interest to several lists, * one can either post only to one of the lists, so as not to risk sending * multiple postings to the same individual -- but then that is at the * expense of NOT reaching the non-overlapping portions of the lists -- or * one can post to them all, and then risk drawing complaints from those * who received the message more than once. * * At the moment, there is no ideal solution. Not all topics are matched * exactly to one and only one list. Deleting multiple versions of a * message only costs a recipient the same number of keystrokes as messages * (and rarely does a topic ovelap more than a half dozen lists). One can * already create customized mail filters that automatically detect and * discard multiple versions of the same message in one's incoming mail -- * just as the listservers themselves have such filters to block multiple * versions of the same message posted to the same list. When these mail * filters are in general use, this problem will vanish (except for the * extra traffic created by sending the multiple messages -- although even * this could in principle be handled by intelligent centralized * routers). * * My own provisional policy is to favor reaching the nonoverlapping * constituency at the expense of the few extra keystrokes for the * overlapping segment, yet I don't wish to be antisocial. People who very * much MIND having to perform the extra keystrokes tend to be more vocal * than those who don't, so one tends to hear only from them. What weight * should be given to their (legitimate) complaint? It seems to me that * this depends on numbers: How many object, relative to those who do not? * What is the relative size of the overlapping and non-overlapping * portions of the lists? How relevant and important is the particular * topic to each of the lists? How frequently does this happen? * * Obviously polls cannot be taken on each and every occasion, as these * would cause more keystrokes than they cured. But the problem is * certainly worthy of discussion. * * Stevan Harnad * * As one who gets frequent cross-posting, I agree with your reasoning that deleting the dups takes very little effort and, while I frequently frown at the 2nd or 3rd posting, I really don't mind the tiny extra effort. So far as I'm concerned just keep the information flowing. Carol Schaafsma Serials Department University of Hawaii Library