Re: Public Comments - pbwelch
Subject: Re: Public Comments
From: pbwelch
Date: February 21, 1998


I appreciate your taking the time and making the effort to post these
messages. I hope you will continue to do so. How about starting your own
mailing list?? I would love that!


Steven Coker wrote:
> 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