|
Subject: Re: Public Comments
From: Patsy
Date: February 21, 1998
Keep it coming, let those who don't need or appreciate it, just use the
delete key. That shouldn't take too much energy.
Patsy
----------
> From: Steven Coker
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Adrian Hopkins
> Subject: Public Comments
> Date: Saturday, February 21, 1998 10:45 AM
>
> To: Sarah Browder and the other subscribers
> cc: Adrian Hopkins, List Owner
>
> This one time public statement is offered for consideration by the list
owner
> and all subscribers. It would be best if responses were not sent to the
list
> service. They should be sent to me or to the list owner.
>
> I'm sorry if any of you don't like the information I posted. Most of it
> contains genealogical resources on numerous surnames in South Carolina
during
> the 1670-1900 period. Including membership roles, poll lists, patient
lists,
> property owner lists, etc. With a couple of exceptions I generally only
posted
> items that contained genealogical gems mentioning more than a few
surnames.
> Here are my some of my thoughts on the matter which I offer for
consideration by
> you and others concerned with the issue of the 30 or so messages I posted
last
> night.
>
> 1. All of the 30 or so messages were small, most 4k or less.
>
> 2. Almost all were on topic with interesting information useful for
genealogy
> researchers. The two that may have stretched the boundaries were about
the
> Attack on Sullivan's Island. Those two were posted in response to
inquiries and
> comments from several people asking specifically about the Island's
history. I
> decided to post that information because the 190 year old book from which
it was
> taken is not readily available to most people.
>
> 3. I've gotten many comments from other readers thanking me for the
posts.
> Nobody has ever complained directly to me about any of them. Quite the
> contrary, so far I've only gotten positive responses. Several have asked
me to
> look for specific information on their surnames, which I have often done
as
> asked. One person did childishly forward several of the messages back to
me
> without comment or explanation of any kind.
>
> 4. I tried to be selective about what I posted. I tried not to post
items that
> didn't have information of interest to a wide audience. That audience
being
> persons seeking genealogy information and resources for South Carolina.
>
> 5. I did the work late at night when the net servers should not be
working
> hard. So the routing would have no effect on the system. Of course 30
or so
> small messages over an 8 hour period wouldn't have had any effect on the
net
> servers anyway.
>
> 6. I don't consider it "hogging" because I wasn't posting information for
> myself. I was posting information to help others, not myself. I've
already
> received messages from others saying the information has helped them.
Several
> such responses arrived while I was doing the work last night. Such
positive
> responses stimulated me to continue past when I would have otherwise
ceased the
> work.
>
> 7. I could have "spread out" the messages and not sent so many in one
night.
> But, I actually thought that concentrating them would be better for the
digest
> editions. Figured putting all those short messages in a few digests
seemed like
> a way to make them easier to use and save for future review.
>
> 8. I was born and raised in Columbia, South Carolina, and have lived in
> Charleston for many years. My various family lines are spread throughout
the
> State and most have been here for 200-300+ years. I graduated from the
> University of South Carolina and spent many hours in Caroliniana Library.
I've
> done research in the State Archives, the Huguenot Society archives, and
I'm a
> past member of the SC Historical Society, and the Sumter and Columbia
chapters
> of the S.C. Genealogical Society. I offer this information by way of
explaining
> that I feel that I have an above average understanding of the State, its
> history, and the genealogy of some of the families found here. Thus, I
feel I
> have some ability to discriminate which types and sources of information
might
> be useful to a wider audience. However, I do not purport to be an
expert, a
> historian, or a professional genealogist. I am just an interested
amateur who
> likes to help share information.
>
> The only negative I thought might be perceived would be that its a lot of
> messages from one person. But, I decided since they were on topic
general
> interest subjects that I would be forgiven for that little sin.
>
> Since I sent all of them before most folks got up this morning, the
messages
> should all be delivered at once when each subscriber logs in for the day,
not
> dribbled in. If anyone is having these messages being delivered or
announced
> one message at the time, there must be something wrong about how their
email
> program is configured. When they first installed email programs on the
140+
> computers in our offices, the default setup was for every incoming
message to
> spawn a popup message and an audio alarm. Well, it wasn't uncommon for
people
> in the office to receive dozens of messages every day. People were
cussing and
> getting very upset because they were regularly being interrupted while
they were
> trying to work by the alarms and popup messages. We simply showed them
how to
> turn off those alarms and set their email program to just blink the icon,
or do
> nothing, when new mail arrived. That solved the problem and ended the
> annoyance. They get even more email now than they did when it was setup
years
> ago. But, now it simply sits politely in their inbox until they get time
to
> check the mail. It doesn't interrupt or annoy them.
>
> I hope that any problems or concerns subscribers might be having with
receiving
> 30 or more messages per day aren't caused by such simple things as an
email
> alarm sounding. Such simple annoyances can be turned off if the
subscriber
> chooses to do so. Isn't the information more important than having a
little
> bell dinging when a message arrives?
>
> When someone gets around to checking their mail, if they find a lot of
stuff
> that doesn't interest them, then its easy to delete it. Takes about 1-2
seconds
> per message to delete them individually. Or, group deletions can be done
even
> faster. The only way it could take a lot of time to delete 30 or so
messages
> would be if the user stopped to read each one first. It seems
incongruous that
> they would take the time to read each of them if they are of the mind
that they
> don't want to see these types of messages.
>
> In conclusion, if either the list owner or a significant number of the
> participant's find my postings undesirable, then I will of course cease
> contributing to the list service. However, as I said earlier, I have to
date
> received many complimentary thanks for the postings and, until now,
almost no
> complaints. Perhaps following this public statement of my thoughts on
the
> matter I will find there are many others who agree with you. I'll be
interested
> to find out one way or the other. But, let us all try to keep any
discussion of
> the subject limited, civil, and let us not clog up the list service with
this
> discussion.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Steven J. Coker
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Enough is enough. If you can't stop Coker from so many messages, then
take me
> > off the list. I had over 35-40 this morn. I do not have time to read SC
> > history. I am interested in genealogy. But that still takes time just
to
> > delete that many messages. Let me know if you intend to stop him or I
and
> > others will have to get off the list. Thanks
> > Sarah Browder
> >
>
> --
>
>
==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====
Go To:
#,
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
H,
I,
J,
K,
L,
M,
N,
O,
P,
Q,
R,
S,
T,
U,
V,
W,
X,
Y,
Z,
Main
| |