threads break things up too much

--- In tuning@y..., Carl Lumma <carl@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_26644.html#26644

> howdy, y'all,
>
> I would like to ask,
>
> (1) How do you like yahoo's message group service?
>
> (2) Do you use the web to access the list, or do you get
> e-mail, and why?
>
> (3) How well does a "group" paradigm work for our
> community?
>
> (4) Have you ever used threaded message boards like
> zeroforum (http://www.zeroforum.com/) or slashcode
> (http://www.slashcode.org/)? Do you think such a
> thing could work for us?
>
> Until recently, usenet was the only viable alternative
> to listserv, and there seemed to be a consensus that
> we didn't want usenet (I agree). Now, the academic
> listserv has been replaced by advertiser-supported
> "groups" services like this one. Meanwhile, the needs
> of our community have changed. What do you think?
>
> Just thought I'd ask.
>
> -Carl

Quite frankly, after looking at these, I believe the threads break
things up too much. Most of us are interested in a wider variety of
topics.

They break down to about 4 things:

1) General tuning

2) Practical composition

3) Practical composition but with a crazy on board

4) Tuning math....

And now there are lists for all of these.

Special features, like the FILES section are also quite usable on
Yahoo...

If it isn't (ain't) broke, it's no joke...

________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

> Quite frankly, after looking at these, I believe the threads break
> things up too much. Most of us are interested in a wider variety
> of topics.
>
> They break down to about 4 things:
>
> 1) General tuning
>
> 2) Practical composition
>
> 3) Practical composition but with a crazy on board
>
> 4) Tuning math....
>
> And now there are lists for all of these.
>
> Special features, like the FILES section are also quite usable on
> Yahoo...
>
> If it isn't (ain't) broke, it's no joke...

Thanks for your feedback, Joseph. Anybody else care to comment?

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., carl@l... wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback, Joseph. Anybody else care to comment?

The Yahoo web interface works for me. Except I wish they had a better
search.

> From: <carl@lumma.org>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 1:03 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: threads break things up too much
>
>
> > Quite frankly, after looking at these, I believe the threads break
> > things up too much. Most of us are interested in a wider variety
> > of topics.
> >
> > They break down to about 4 things:
> >
> > 1) General tuning
> >
> > 2) Practical composition
> >
> > 3) Practical composition but with a crazy on board
> >
> > 4) Tuning math....
> >
> > And now there are lists for all of these.
> >
> > Special features, like the FILES section are also quite usable on
> > Yahoo...
> >
> > If it isn't (ain't) broke, it's no joke...
>
> Thanks for your feedback, Joseph. Anybody else care to comment?

I very much agree with Joe Pehrson on this, adding only that
I also find spiritual_tuning to be very valuable... and of course,
my own two very specialized groups (celestial-music and justmusic).

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> I very much agree with Joe Pehrson on this, adding only that
> I also find spiritual_tuning to be very valuable... and of course,
> my own two very specialized groups (celestial-music and justmusic).

So that's three people who are satisfied with Yahoo. None of
whom said wether they get e-mail or use the web...

Anybody dislike the e-group paradigm?

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., carl@l... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_26649.html#26668

> > I very much agree with Joe Pehrson on this, adding only that
> > I also find spiritual_tuning to be very valuable... and of course,
> > my own two very specialized groups (celestial-music and
justmusic).
>
> So that's three people who are satisfied with Yahoo. None of
> whom said wether they get e-mail or use the web...
>
> Anybody dislike the e-group paradigm?
>
> -Carl

"Web only" for me...

_______ _________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

> From: <carl@lumma.org>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 10:28 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: threads break things up too much
>
> > [me, monz:]
> > I very much agree with Joe Pehrson on this, adding only that
> > I also find spiritual_tuning to be very valuable... and of course,
> > my own two very specialized groups (celestial-music and justmusic).
>
> So that's three people who are satisfied with Yahoo. None of
> whom said wether they get e-mail or use the web...
>
> Anybody dislike the e-group paradigm?

I was using the web-based interface when the list first migrated
to Onelist then was bought out by Yahoo. But with the proliferation
of new tuning lists beginning about 4 months ago, I switched
to using Microsoft Outlook to cleanly separate the emails into
their respective folders.

I agree with whoever said that the Yahoo search engine could be
better (was that Dave Keenan?), and of course the advertisements
of the web interface are a drag, but hey, that's what makes it
free, and that's a small price to pay.

What would be really nice would be a way to search *all* of the
different tuning lists's archives at once for pertinent posts.

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Carl,

--- In tuning@y..., carl@l... wrote:
> So that's three people who are satisfied with Yahoo. None of
> whom said wether they get e-mail or use the web...
>
> Anybody dislike the e-group paradigm?

Two thoughts, if you are really bent on finding a new home or if
others want to:

1. Have Mark Nowitzky put up a poll and see how people vote. And how
*many* vote. I think the results would tell a fair amount.

2. If the other services are free, start a new list yourself, invite
people to join, and see what kind of membership you get.

If I'm misunderstanding the reasons for your questions, feel free to
elaborate. It doesn't, currently, seem like a ground-swell of
dissatisfaction...

Cheers,
Jon

>>So that's three people who are satisfied with Yahoo. None of
>>whom said wether they get e-mail or use the web...
>>
>> Anybody dislike the e-group paradigm?
>
>Two thoughts, if you are really bent on finding a new home or if
>others want to:
>
>1. Have Mark Nowitzky put up a poll and see how people vote. And how
>*many* vote. I think the results would tell a fair amount.
>
>2. If the other services are free, start a new list yourself, invite
>people to join, and see what kind of membership you get.
>
>If I'm misunderstanding the reasons for your questions, feel free to
>elaborate. It doesn't, currently, seem like a ground-swell of
>dissatisfaction...

Jeez, thanks for the summary, O Jon.

You may be misunderstanding my reasons... I have no intention of
making a political rally to move the list.

My question was actually to determine wether or not anyone
wanted me to setup up one of these message systems for the
community. Now that the cat's out of the bag, the results
will be tainted. But you're probably right that there isn't
a whole lot of interest in having me do that.

-Carl

> I was using the web-based interface when the list first migrated
> to Onelist then was bought out by Yahoo. But with the proliferation
> of new tuning lists beginning about 4 months ago, I switched
> to using Microsoft Outlook to cleanly separate the emails into
> their respective folders.

Based on my experience (I'm a web-only since December 2000), I
would imagine that would be the only way to effectively manange
more than one list, but Joseph Pehrson seems to do okay...

> I agree with whoever said that the Yahoo search engine could be
> better (was that Dave Keenan?),

Yep, that was Dave. IMO, the Yahoo search engine is so bad,
I shouldn't even be writing this sentence. For a company that
had the brains to use google for everything else, I'm surprised.

> What would be really nice would be a way to search *all* of the
> different tuning lists's archives at once for pertinent posts.

Ooooo... this sounds like dissent. Do you beat your wife, Monz?
:)

Seriously, with all these lists, hasn't the real atomic unit
of discussion here become the thread (cross posting=yuck!)? But
in Yahoo, there's just about no thread management. One particular
pet peeve of mine is that I can't seem to get my replies threaded
in (such as it is) unless I post from the web.

Well, my question is totally ruined now... I was trying my
derndest to keep my mouth shut. Szanto hit me right where I'm
weakest... :)

Seriously, did anyone actually bother to check the links I
listed (yes, Jon, all but one is GPL)? Anybody ever read
slashdot? I must be the only nerd around here! So I'd better
explain that news servers like slashdot use (limited) free-market
auto-moderation schemes, that would bring out the gems, and
kill the icky stuff. With something like MIRACLE, for example...
that thread would have approached the stature of a list for
a time, then it would dynamically fade back into an ordinary
thread. OTOH, McLaren gets on, and all his smut never even
makes it to you, while his 1% of good articles get through.

Jon implied I had political motives. In fact, I'm really
just interested in discourse in general. To my knowledge,
services like slashcode have never been applied to a list
environment like this. Why would/wouldn't this be a good
idea? Anybody there?? Say hi! :) Graham, John Starrett?

-Carl

Carl,

Hey, just to be clear, I need to mention something!

--- In tuning@y..., carl@l... wrote:
> Jon implied I had political motives. In fact, I'm really
> just interested in discourse in general.

Really, Carl, I had no intention of that at all. I thought when you
replied that I sensed I had rubbed you wrongly, and I hope we just
chalk it up to bad verbiage and ascii communication on my part!

Point being is that you kind of mentioned this out of the clear blue
sky, and I was wondering a. what got you thinking about the
inadequacies of Yahoo (other than the simple fact they exist!) and b.
what you had dreamed of doing.

If you go back to the time when you *weren't* on the list (or were on
hiatus), you'll find posts from me about how gunky I find this
bidness with first eGroups and now Yahoo, and I *don't like one bit*
using the web interface.

But the list got moved here, it is free, someone took the time to do
it, and discussions have continued. Is it transparent, noise-free,
easily searchable, and responsive.

Yeah, right.

But I think you would have to have a very large set of reasons to
have the main tuning list make a move at this point. I've come to
believe that this community is broad not only in musical matters but
in terms of raw computer-human interface matters, and this simplistic
GUI tacked onto a mailing list does actually seem to work for
(possibly) a bigger audience than a traditional listserv or bbs or
any number of other ways to communicate.

So, not wanting to ruffle feathers, just curious about what got you
to post those thoughts in the first place...

Me, I love my favorite lists, which are still running dedicated list
software and servers!

Cheers,
Jon

>> Jon implied I had political motives. In fact, I'm really
>> just interested in discourse in general.
>
> Really, Carl, I had no intention of that at all. I thought when
> you replied that I sensed I had rubbed you wrongly, and I hope we
> just chalk it up to bad verbiage and ascii communication on my
> part!

No bad at all. I wasn't upset, by any means. I may be terse
lately, as I've got threads going on 4 lists right now, as an
experiment... and the web interface makes me awnry as a matter
of general principle, even with only one thread going.

Plus, I'm getting older, and grumpier.

> If you go back to the time when you *weren't* on the list (or
> were on hiatus), you'll find posts from me about how gunky I find
> this bidness with first eGroups and now Yahoo, and I *don't like
> one bit* using the web interface.

ah-Ha!

> Yeah, right.
>
> But I think you would have to have a very large set of reasons to
> have the main tuning list make a move at this point. I've come to
> believe that this community is broad not only in musical matters=
> but in terms of raw computer-human interface matters, and this
> simplistic GUI tacked onto a mailing list does actually seem to
> work for (possibly) a bigger audience than a traditional listserv
> or bbs or any number of other ways to communicate.

Hmm. Useability, eh? I hadn't considered that.

> So, not wanting to ruffle feathers, just curious about what got you
> to post those thoughts in the first place...

I'd say, a general interest in improving how people work. Are
lists as we know them a good way to for a group of people to work
together remotely? Can they this be improved?

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_26649.html#26676

> Carl,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., carl@l... wrote:
> > So that's three people who are satisfied with Yahoo. None of
> > whom said wether they get e-mail or use the web...
> >
> > Anybody dislike the e-group paradigm?
>
> Two thoughts, if you are really bent on finding a new home or if
> others want to:
>
> 1. Have Mark Nowitzky put up a poll and see how people vote. And
how
> *many* vote. I think the results would tell a fair amount.
>
> 2. If the other services are free, start a new list yourself,
invite
> people to join, and see what kind of membership you get.
>
> If I'm misunderstanding the reasons for your questions, feel free
to
> elaborate. It doesn't, currently, seem like a ground-swell of
> dissatisfaction...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Jon...

If you will recall, about 6 months ago people were asked whether they
wished to stay with Yahoo Groups and the majority responded in a poll
that they did.

Of course, it wasn't a really large sample of the participants, but
the ones who *did* respond favored keeping the "status quo..."

_________ _________ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., carl@l... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_26649.html#26678

> > I was using the web-based interface when the list first migrated
> > to Onelist then was bought out by Yahoo. But with the
proliferation
> > of new tuning lists beginning about 4 months ago, I switched
> > to using Microsoft Outlook to cleanly separate the emails into
> > their respective folders.
>
> Based on my experience (I'm a web-only since December 2000), I
> would imagine that would be the only way to effectively manange
> more than one list, but Joseph Pehrson seems to do okay...
>

I have no problem with it... I just simply "bookmark" the "message"
section of the lists in my "Favorites" in Internet Explored. Then I
can easily go from one list to another... And I don't get a lot of e-
mail cluttering my computer...

>
> Seriously, with all these lists, hasn't the real atomic unit
> of discussion here become the thread (cross posting=yuck!)? But
> in Yahoo, there's just about no thread management. One particular
> pet peeve of mine is that I can't seem to get my replies threaded
> in (such as it is) unless I post from the web.
>
> Well, my question is totally ruined now... I was trying my
> derndest to keep my mouth shut. Szanto hit me right where I'm
> weakest... :)
>
> Seriously, did anyone actually bother to check the links I
> listed (yes, Jon, all but one is GPL)? Anybody ever read
> slashdot?

As I mentioned, I did look at those sites, but I'm not really
satisfied with the "thread paradigm." It makes things too "split up"
and sectarian... with people just staying on their own little
personal topics...

_________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> If you will recall, about 6 months ago people were asked whether
> they wished to stay with Yahoo Groups and the majority responded in
> a poll that they did.

Yes, I recall. Carl wasn't here then (AFAIK).

> Of course, it wasn't a really large sample of the participants, but
> the ones who *did* respond favored keeping the "status quo..."

Yep.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> It makes things too "split up" and sectarian... with people just
> staying on their own little personal topics...

You know, some days that sounds like paradise...

:)

Let's move this discussion to where it belongs:

metatuning@yahoogroups.com

OK?

> Let's move this discussion to where it belongs:
>
> metatuning@y...
>
> OK?

That this post was necessary merely serves to convince
me that there's little need for more discussion... it
isn't threads that break things up too much!

-Carl