Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re:Archives

Hi there

I'm wondering if some posters to the TL might
prefer if their posts are left out of the archive.

The medium is after all a one for ephemeral posts
in its nature, even if we are using it as an archive too.

To deal with this posibility,
I think I should make it an opt in thing.

So, if you want your posts included in the
archive, send me an e-mail with "Opt in tuning archive"
as the subject line. That will make it easy for me to find them
when the time comes to make the archive.

I'll then make a big list of names, and get the program
to filter so that it only includes posts from names
on that list.

Any comments? If we agree this is a good system,
I suggest we go ahead with it.

Perhaps also, if you are happy for your posts to
be available on-line and fully searchable and
findable in Google etc, send me an e-mail with title
"Opt in searchable tuning archive"

So, (unless the two lists are identical of course)
I can make two archives, one for off-line browsing,
and one which could be uploaded to a web site,
or as much of it as one can upload for the space
available.

"Opt in searchable tuning archive"
or
"Opt in tuning archive"
If the searchable one, then I assume you are also
happy to be in the off-line one.

Robert

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Gene

> You can follow a thread in the archive in this way, and find it broken.

Yes.

You'll see replies to posts that aren't in it, or see a whole series of
posts with no first one in the series, or with one of the
posters in the debate missing. That can't be avoided if some of the
posts are to be left out.

However, in the html, the messages will be shown one after another
with no gaps - the archive making program doesn't require the
messages numbers to be consecutive since there were often gaps
in the on-line archive anyway for one reason or another.

So navigation of the archive will be seamless, and one need
have no worries on that score.

Robert

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Paul,

At least, presumably we'll have all of your posts, and
a fair number of the regular posters have already made it pretty clear that
they like the idea, so one assumes, would be happy about being included.
So that is a fair body of posts to start with, and I'm sure there'll be more.
I am happy to be included in the archive, of course.

Maybe once archive is made, others will notice the gaps in it where their
posts should be, and want to be included - it isn't a final thing as I can
quickly remake it and would just need to add new names to the list as people
want to be added.

I want to make an archive that _everyone_ on the list is completely
happy about - it's their posts that are going into it.

In the end it will come to a personal decision, and as author of the
program I am not willing to release it or its archives unless
in a form acceptable to everyone who has posted to the list.

At present, rather looks as if I can't release the program itself at all,
only its archives. I've been a bit wary about releasing it since first
working on it as it raises too many and various issues and I can't see to the
end of where they all might lead if I do release it; and the more I
find out about the various implications, the less sensible it seems
to release it unfortunately. (Naturally something of a disapointment
as a programmer, but, well not everything one does works, or turns
out to be sensible to develop any further - one tries many things,
and some work, some don't).

However, I think it is at least okay to release archives, if done in a
way acceptable to everyone concerned.

Sure, some of those who posted will be left out who might well
want to be included, but I can't think of anything we can do about
that, and it's better that than the other way round.

I've been puzzling over the situation, and this is the best solution
I can think of so far.

Robert

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Paul,

I've thought it over some more, and I think this may be what to do:

There'll be an on-line archive, - Joseph has said he likes it being on-line
and I'm pretty sure you'd be happy with it, and I would be, prob. a
few more, enough to get it started.

So, I'll add soemthing to the main contents page of the archive,
prob. the contents pages for each section too (at the end) saying,
if you posted to the TL and would like your posts included in the archive,
please send e-mail with subject ... If you want them to be availble, but
only for off-line browsing by subscribers to the TL who
use the archive on cd, send e-mail with subject ....

Or something. I'll think over the best system to use for it in terms
of practicalities.

Then even those who no longer post to the TL are pretty likely
eventually to come across this archive in google searches, as our archive
came near the top of quite a few microtonal searches when
it was on-line before (when I thought it was excluded via
the robots.txt and wasn't because my robots.txt wasn't
in the root directory of nbci).

They'll notice they've been left out of it and if they
want to have their posts included, will know what to do about
it.

This is assuming I make the on-line archive searchable by
Google so that it can index all the microtonal words in
it - otherwise, it prob. won't appear in the searches at all
as all Google will be able to index will be the contents
page, and whatever microtonal words appear in that.

One can make individual pages of the on-line archive
hidden from google and most search engines by adding meta tags
to each page to ignore it, as search engines respect
meta tags too (the "law abiding ones" as it were; all
the ones most people use), and I have option to add those
meta tags to every page and was planning to do that for the
on-line archive, but maybe they aren't necessary if we
do it this way.

Anyway that's how I'm thinking at the moment. How does it seem?

I'm just off for my Christmas holidays today but will prob.
get opportunity to look in from time to time.

Happy Christmas and New year everyone.

Robert

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗robert_inventor5 <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31756.html#31843

> Then even those who no longer post to the TL are pretty likely
> eventually to come across this archive in google searches, as our
archive
> came near the top of quite a few microtonal searches when
> it was on-line before (when I thought it was excluded via
> the robots.txt and wasn't because my robots.txt wasn't
> in the root directory of nbci).
>
> They'll notice they've been left out of it and if they
> want to have their posts included, will know what to do about
> it.
>

Hello Robert!

Congratulations on all the great work you've been doing with the
archive.

I have one question, though. Does it really make any sense to be so
concerned about whether people want to be included or not on an
archive when they *obviously* have no problems about being on the
Yahoo archive?

Is this really such a huge issue. Have there been any respondents
who have indicated so far that they *don't* want to be included?

Just curious...

Joseph

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Joe and Robert,

Count me out! In fact, if I could bulk erase my posts I'd do it
without a second's hesitation.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:31 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Archives

> --- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_31756.html#31843
>
> > Then even those who no longer post to the TL are pretty likely
> > eventually to come across this archive in google searches, as our
> archive
> > came near the top of quite a few microtonal searches when
> > it was on-line before (when I thought it was excluded via
> > the robots.txt and wasn't because my robots.txt wasn't
> > in the root directory of nbci).
> >
> > They'll notice they've been left out of it and if they
> > want to have their posts included, will know what to do about
> > it.
> >
>
> Hello Robert!
>
> Congratulations on all the great work you've been doing with the
> archive.
>
> I have one question, though. Does it really make any sense to be so
> concerned about whether people want to be included or not on an
> archive when they *obviously* have no problems about being on the
> Yahoo archive?
>
> Is this really such a huge issue. Have there been any respondents
> who have indicated so far that they *don't* want to be included?
>
> Just curious...
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Send FREE Holiday eCards from Yahoo! Greetings.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/IgTaHA/ZQdDAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31756.html#32035

> Joe and Robert,
>
> Count me out! In fact, if I could bulk erase my posts I'd do it
> without a second's hesitation.
>
> --Dan Stearns
>
>

Hi Dan!

Maybe you'd better send Robert Walker a *personal* e-mail to that
effect, if you're serious about this. I sent him one *opting-in* for
myself...

Are you sure you're not just in a *mood* about the List of late?

I believe it would be a shame if you "opted out" since you have added
immeasurably to various discussions here, even if there has been a
difference of opinion from time to time...

best,

Joe

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

Hi Dan,

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:02 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Archives
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_31756.html#32035
>
>
> > Joe and Robert,
> >
> > Count me out! In fact, if I could bulk erase my posts I'd do it
> > without a second's hesitation.
> >
> > --Dan Stearns
> >
> ...
>
> Are you sure you're not just in a *mood* about the List of late?
>
> I believe it would be a shame if you "opted out" since you have
> added immeasurably to various discussions here, even if there has
> been a difference of opinion from time to time...
>
> best,
>
> Joe

I'm stunned -- I can't believe you don't want your awesome
contributions to this list to be archived! I totally agree
with Joe P ... for what it's worth to you.

-monz

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

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Joe,

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but my personal preference would be
to have a running dialog, same as we have, but with no permanent
archives.

I guess I feel that the vast majority of what's posted here is either
never-ending works in progress or banter. I happen to mostly enjoy the
banter and the works in progress, and I guess that's why I'm here, but
I see no need for every last bit of it to be heaped in some colossal
storage pile for eternity.

No archives would also presumably impel some folks with something they
feel is worth finishing and saving to get it in a more presentable
form--one worthy of archiving.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "monz" <joemonz@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Archives

> Hi Dan,
>
>
> > From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> > To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:02 AM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: Archives
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_31756.html#32035
> >
> >
> > > Joe and Robert,
> > >
> > > Count me out! In fact, if I could bulk erase my posts I'd do it
> > > without a second's hesitation.
> > >
> > > --Dan Stearns
> > >
> > ...
> >
> > Are you sure you're not just in a *mood* about the List of late?
> >
> > I believe it would be a shame if you "opted out" since you have
> > added immeasurably to various discussions here, even if there has
> > been a difference of opinion from time to time...
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Joe
>
>
> I'm stunned -- I can't believe you don't want your awesome
> contributions to this list to be archived! I totally agree
> with Joe P ... for what it's worth to you.
>
>
> -monz
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
> Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
> Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31756.html#32193

> Joe,
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence, but my personal preference would
be
> to have a running dialog, same as we have, but with no permanent
> archives.
>
> I guess I feel that the vast majority of what's posted here is
either
> never-ending works in progress or banter. I happen to mostly enjoy
the
> banter and the works in progress, and I guess that's why I'm here,
but
> I see no need for every last bit of it to be heaped in some colossal
> storage pile for eternity.
>
> No archives would also presumably impel some folks with something
they
> feel is worth finishing and saving to get it in a more presentable
> form--one worthy of archiving.
>
>
> --Dan Stearns
>

Gee... I don't know, Dan. Given all I've learned on this list by
the "banter" method, I would like to read everything all the way back
to Mills... if there were only time...

Joe

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Dan,

I've been away for Christmas holidays and just got back and
seen some of the posts about archives made while I was away.

The original motivation for doing the archives at all actually
was to help those who want to look up their old posts in the
archive in order to make them into faq entries - at least I remember
well that that was my original motivation for programming for it.

Then seemed that having some of the posts on-line searchable wasn't such
a bad thing either - as it is clearly a discussion group rather than
a polished articles - for those who are interested to have their
posts included in that. There is so little on this on the web even with the
redoubtable Monz dictionary / encyclopedia.

Now that I know some don't want their posts included in one or other
of the archives it will be opt in rather than opt out. If you don't want
your posts included, no need to say anything. Only if you want them
included, let me know. There'll be no way to tell from the archive
who wants their posts left out, and who hasn't yet got round to getting
them included.

Robert

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi everyone

I'll prob. start with the google searchable archive as that is a good way
to maybe get in touch with people who posted and have left or whatever
and may want their posts included and so we can all see what it looks like.

Could also do a few cds for the most enthusiastic
early on.

So far those who are happy to have their posts in the archive
have been happy to let them be findable in Google as well.

So, I may just make it a single list for now, which is a little easier.
If anyone wants to be just on the cd, or on-line and not
searchable, or whatever, let me know and I'll make it
into several lists.

Six names so far in the list. I won't assume that _anyone_
wants to be included.

Just let me know if you do.

tuning_archive @ rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk

Remove the spaces around the "@" to make into e-mail
address:
tuning_archive@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk

I'll also say this and include the address at the head of each message page in the on-line archive.

Robert

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31756.html#32457

> --- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> > Hi Gene,
> >
> > > Include mine--I post partly as a way of archiving.
> >
> > Okay, will do.
>
> I think at some point you should email everyone you are not sure
of, and ask. Also, are you including tuning-math?

Hi Gene...

Well, this certainly makes a lot of extra work for Robert, no??

I'm rather wondering if anybody really objects or *cares* whether
their posts are on a CD.

If they are so concerned, why do they let them sit on the Yahoo
archive rather than deleting them??

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Joe,

I for one would rather not have mine archived or otherwise
disseminated and perpetuated for a variety of reasons I've already
gone into and some I don't need to.

If there were some bulk delete option I'd use it, but deleting three
years worth of posts one at a time is a little obsessive even for me!

Hey, in the grand scheme of things it's really no big deal, and
whatever happens, happens. But if someone's asking, well then I'd
rather not have mine included--thanks.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 7:26 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Archives

> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_31756.html#32457
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> > > Hi Gene,
> > >
> > > > Include mine--I post partly as a way of archiving.
> > >
> > > Okay, will do.
> >
> > I think at some point you should email everyone you are not sure
> of, and ask. Also, are you including tuning-math?
>
>
> Hi Gene...
>
> Well, this certainly makes a lot of extra work for Robert, no??
>
> I'm rather wondering if anybody really objects or *cares* whether
> their posts are on a CD.
>
> If they are so concerned, why do they let them sit on the Yahoo
> archive rather than deleting them??
>
> JP
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
> Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
> Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe
through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning
group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on
hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily
digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31756.html#32459

> Joe,
>
> I for one would rather not have mine archived or otherwise
> disseminated and perpetuated for a variety of reasons I've already
> gone into and some I don't need to.
>
> If there were some bulk delete option I'd use it, but deleting three
> years worth of posts one at a time is a little obsessive even for
me!
>
> Hey, in the grand scheme of things it's really no big deal, and
> whatever happens, happens. But if someone's asking, well then I'd
> rather not have mine included--thanks.
>
> --Dan Stearns
>

Hi Dan!

Well, I guess that answers my question that some people *do* care...

best,

🔗gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

Hi Robert!

Question: I noticed in the message digest that some postings conclude
with "[This message contained attachments]". Will these attachments
also be archived? (I don't think I saw any attachments to messages on
the web.)

Comment: For future new members on the Tuning List, I hope that you
will be including in a welcoming e-mail information about the
archiving policy (including a stat on the percentage of members that
have agreed to it).

--George Secor

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> If anyone wants to be just on the cd, or on-line and not
> searchable, or whatever, let me know and I'll make it
> into several lists.
>
> Six names so far in the list. I won't assume that _anyone_
> wants to be included.
>
> Just let me know if you do.
>
> tuning_archive @ rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk
>
> Remove the spaces around the "@" to make into e-mail
> address ...
>
> Robert

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31756.html#32467

> Hi Robert!
>
> Question: I noticed in the message digest that some postings
conclude
> with "[This message contained attachments]". Will these attachments
> also be archived? (I don't think I saw any attachments to messages
on
> the web.)
>
> Comment: For future new members on the Tuning List, I hope that you
> will be including in a welcoming e-mail information about the
> archiving policy (including a stat on the percentage of members
that
> have agreed to it).
>
> --George Secor
>

Hello George Secor!

(no relationship to "au secours," I gather!)

I believe attachments will never be saved in the archives. In fact,
such attachments don't even work if posted to this Group, at least on
the Web.

In fact, to go even further, I don't even believe that attachments
work when received as e-mails...

That's why whenever anybody wants to share a file, it's best to
upload it to the "Files" section of the Web group...

best wishes, and looking forward to your participation!

Joseph Pehrson

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi George,

> Question: I noticed in the message digest that some postings conclude
> with "[This message contained attachments]". Will these attachments
> also be archived? (I don't think I saw any attachments to messages on
> the web.)

As Joseph has just said, no, they won't. I think the tuning list may not
be set up to receive them.

I belong to another list that does show attachments on the messages page
as a separate link you click on to download them - the download link isn't
given in the digests though. My program prob. won't be able to include these in an
archive either, as it works by extracting them from the digests. It might have
been able to do so before the change of format, when it downloaded the posts
using the on-line "view source".

> Comment: For future new members on the Tuning List, I hope that you
> will be including in a welcoming e-mail information about the
> archiving policy (including a stat on the percentage of members that
> have agreed to it).

That's for the list owner to decide. Perhaps once we see examples of the
archive we can look further ahead. I've done a trial archive to check
that the authors list works (it does). I'll wait a few days in case there are a
few more names to add to the list of authors, then add messages
extracted from the more recent digests and upload the on line archive,
- prob. start with the most recent few months to show what it is like.

Then we can see how it goes, and if it all works according to plan or
any tweaking needs to be done.

Robert

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Gene,

> I think at some point you should email everyone you are not sure of, and ask. Also, are you
including tuning-math?

I can do tuning-math as a separate archive, & perhaps link to it from the contents page of tuning
archive.
This will be easy as I did an archive up to 7th sept 2001 before Google changed the format of the
posts,
and have digests from then onwards.

As for e-mailing everyone, I'm already doing so by posting to the list, as these posts will go to
all those
already on it. Though only a small percentage have replied so far, if I get a list up and running
I expect more will.

These won't get to those who have left the list but hopefully some of those may find the archive in
google searches if still active and interested in microtonal matters.

It will be easy to redo the archive to add more authors to it. I'll perhaps start with a smaller
demo on-line archive to give the idea and get it going.

Reminder to anyone reading this
- if you want to be in the archive, send e-mail to
tuning_archive @ rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk
(remove the spaces about the "@")

tuning_archive@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk

I will then add you to the list. This means your posts will be in the on-line archive and
also can be included in cd-rom of archive to send to members only. If you want to be
on one / some of those only, say in the message.

It's okay to leave the body and subject of the message blank if you want to do it quickly - just
click
on that link and send the e-mail to me (to make it as easy as possible). I'll reply saying you are
added to the list.

Robert

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi everyone,

Here is first draft of the recent archives.
http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning_digests/html/index.html

To get your posts added, send e-mail to
tuning_archive @ rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk
(remove spaces around the @)
=
tuning_archive@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk

If you do it via the mailto link at the head of the contents page
for the archive, the subject and body of the message gets filled in
for you.

I assume one is happy to be included in the searchable on-line archive
and the cd-rom unless one says something else - the message that gets filled
in says this explicitly.

Its opt in so _nobody_ will be automatically included.

So if you have posted to the list and want to be in it, be sure to let me know.

I'll combine this archive with the earlier posts and the mills list
once we have tried this one out for a little while and seen how it goes.

Some members post under more than one e-mail address or Yahoo Id, so it is worth
checking to see if all your posts have been included if you do, and let
me know if not.

Robert

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Gene,

Sorry, may have expressed it poorly.

I assume all the archives are the same community, so
you opt in for tuning, tuning-math, harmonic_entropy
all in one go (unless one says otherwise). Also the
other public tuning offshoots too if they are done.
(And JM, as archive for JM members only I assume,
as it is a private list).

So you are in for all of them. I posted to the other
two lists just because it seemed that if I'm going to
make an archive of a list, I should post to it
about it first.

Some may want all their posts to be included, so that's okay.
In fact, everyone so far who has joined has wanted all their
posts to be included, and also, all of them to be found
in the search engines too.

But, if anyone wants some of their posts left out, that
should be catered for if poss too.

Yahoogrouops have a delete button, and there must be a reason for that
- and any posts deleted from yahoogroups still get into the
digests, and so will be in the archives too, for the
part that is constructed from digests anyway.

It would be nice if it could be opt out as one would
get more posts, because lots who are happy for their
posts to be in it will prob. never get round to saying
so. Some also make a few posts and then leave the list,
and they too might be perfectly happy for their posts
to be included.

However, that's not an option because if one did it that
way some posts would be surely included from members
who don't want their posts in it.

So I think it has to be opt in.

I did it out of respect for the views of members.

However, if you take a look at

http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#cen

then you'll see it has to be done this way. The
Google archiving of usenet must be a special
case in some way (and as a matter of opinion, I think they should
have made that archive opt in too, actually, whatever the
situation is as regards what they could and couldn't do).

So, just hope we get lots of members joining in.
Very few so far, but it is early days. Maybe when
I get it up and running. Will be about a third
of the posts as it is.

For anyone who wants their posts included and isn't
in it yet:
e-mail to
tuning_archive@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk
tuning_archive @ rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk

and say if you want any restrictions on how they are
used e.g. not found in search engines or not on cd.

Robert

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗clumma <carl@lumma.org>

>However, that's not an option because if one did it that
>way some posts would be surely included from members
>who don't want their posts in it.
>
>So I think it has to be opt in.
>
>I did it out of respect for the views of members.

That's fine.

> However, if you take a look at
>
> http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#cen
>
> then you'll see it has to be done this way.

My interp. is that posters retain their copyright, but
even this is far from a closed issue.

> The Google archiving of usenet must be a special
> case in some way

It's not just google. History has shown again and
again that the archiving of publically-published
documents is not protected under copyright. Most
recently, before google image search came out, another
image search company was taken to court (forget their
name). The case was smashed.

> So, just hope we get lots of members joining in.

While many of my posts may be garbage, I'm not childish
enough to publish them publically and then retract them
years later when someone wants to archive them.

You may archive my posts.

> For anyone who wants their posts included and isn't
> in it yet:
> e-mail to
> tuning_archive@r...
> tuning_archive @ rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk
>
> and say if you want any restrictions on how they are
> used e.g. not found in search engines or not on cd.

Too much work.

-Carl

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Gene,

> I use delete when there is an arror serious enough to be worth deleting and
> redoing, so I'm not particularly keen on keeping my deleted posts, which seems
> counterproductive.

I can see your point. Yes, one wouldn't want to keep deleted posts.

It's a bit tricky, the deleted posts stay in the digests, with no indication
that they have been deleted.

I wonder what we can do? I hadn't really thought this through.

The only place I know of that can be a source of information about whether
a post is deleted is the on-line archive - look and see if it is there
or not.

Now, it turns out that my program can deal with the cookies now,
which it wasn't doing before (don't know what has changed,
just tried it again today and suddenly it was working again,
and checking in the debugger, it is getting and setting cookies
too).

However, it still can't find the posts in the pages because
they are converted to html, so it doesn't know where they
begin and end (no <pre> </pre> tags).

They have also lost all the ascii formatting as well of course,
as we know.

Tried the expand messages trick, and for some reason it just
wouldn't work - my program gets sent a single html message
instead of the page of plain text ("formatted" <pre> </pre>) messages

I can't figure that out at all, since the page is showing up okay
in IE, so what is IE doing that my program isn't? Especially as
view source is working. Nothing is involved about security or
anything either.

If one could do that it would be back to the way it was before pretty
much, and one could just download the archive, and forget about the
digests.

However, for now, can't get that to work.

Another idea is to see if one gets the
Oops, message ... doesn't exist in tuning type message.
Then delete all the messages from the archive that one gets
that for. That is a bit of a waste as you download all the
messages just in order to find out which ones aren't there.
Also would depend on exactly synchronising the digest
numbers and the yahoo archive numbers - in theory they
should synchronise exactly, but it seems the kind of thing
where possibly they might go out of sync if there is any glitch
anywhere.

Second best is that I make the archive, upload it, you
look through it and make a file of the date fields for
all the posts you want to delete (including both the date and
the time). Then I remake the archive with those removed,
and re-upload it.

I.e. you'd go to

http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning_digests/html/s___1/author___1.html
and make a list like this:
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:19:42
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:01:45
...
but only for the ones you want removed. You'd need to do it for
each section in the archive.

That would work. Might be a bit tedious for you to find all the posts to delete.
Programming seems pretty straightforward, one only needs do that once.
I'd upload the archive with all the posts hidden from search
engines via meta tags, then re-upload it once one had made
the list of posts to delete.

Another thought, what if in the meanwhile we do the
archive, and I add a note to it saying that it has
some messages deleted from the original archive,
maybe at the top of each page of messages,
brief, with link for more information about it?

Maybe there is something else that will solve it. But anyway,
that's the situation at present. If I leave it a couple of days
and come back to it, maybe some other thought will occur.
Or, might Yahoogroups eventually be persuaded to change the
messages back to plain ascii? Then I wouldn't need
to do anything at all, just use the archiving program
as it is.

Robert

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Pete,

> Just for the record (?) I must say that I think the archives should
> be 'opt-out only' at their most generous, however confounding this
> may be for the archivist, because I think that all of the posts are
> so revealing of all of us in these times that they should be
> preserved as much as possible in toto as a recording of what we
> really are, and not what we'd like to be remembered for.

> I hope you'll take this with no small thanks for even considering
> responsibility for any part of this massive effort!

> And wondrous appreciation for your artistic contributions as well!

Looks as if you want to be in the archive anyway. Shall I add you in?

Glad you like my contributions.

Sounds like the usenet archives must be something like the philosophy
you are describing.

I think these ones are more a way of making data accessible to
people that is hidden away in the archives, and mean we spend
less time re-inventing and re-discovering things, so for instance
when Paul says, you can read all about it in the archives
so many months ago, one can just look the things up and find them
and not have to go over it all again. Easier to look up off-line
than on-line unless perhaps if one has a really fast connection.

Plus ideally, hopefully some members will find the time to go over the older posts
and make them into faq entries (though some like Margo's posts
are pretty much polished finished articles as they stand!).

Anyway, as I said, even in case of the Usenet archives I feel
myself that they should be opt in. That's partly a matter of
opinion perhaps, but as archiver that's how I feel.

As I've just said to Carl, as regards legal position I
expect one would need to seek expert advice if one
wanted to know that for sure.

Robert

🔗clumma <carl@lumma.org>

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> Ok, I've added you in, thanks.

> Well, I'm no lawyer, I don't suppose you are either?

Most definitely not.

> Who knows what the exact legal situation is, I think one
> would need expert advice.

Innocent until found guilty is the rule. And before that,
do what you think is right is the rule.

>>>I did it out of respect for the views of members.
>>
>> That's fine.
>
>Let's just leave it at that then.

Thanks for taking it on yourself to make these archives,
Robert!

-Carl

🔗clumma <carl@lumma.org>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Paul,

It's okay. The message numbers are from the start of the digests rather than
the start of the archive. So I've got the earlier ones too.

The thing is the digests don't give the original message numbers.

It is quite likely that the message numbers in the archive I make won't
correspond with those for the yahoogroups on-line archive - at least, not
from the point at which it uses the digests. They will be okay before then.

When I put the two archives together, I may start from 1 again for the digests,
or else, may start at the next message number after the last one in the downloaded
archive.

The posts go right back to the start of the tuning group at yahoogroups.

Robert

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi there,

Here is the new tuning digests archive, with the posts of
everyone who wanted to be in it.

http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning/html/index.html
That has all the ones I have as digests.
Complete archive with the earlier yahoo posts and the mills posts will be later.

Also, tuning-math, complete up to date:
http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning-math/html/index.html

Harmonic entropy - up to Nov 2001
http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/harmonic_entropy/html/index.html
I haven't got the digests from Nov 2001 to the present after all - sorry, some confustion
there. The ones I've got are from Nov 2000 to jan 2001.

If anyone has the recent digests, I can bring it up to date.

I've excluded all the from search engines via metatags to give
you an opportunity to delete posts.

The reason for the large sections is that it easier to see a
complete list of all ones post and find which ones you want to delete.

To delete posts, send me a list of the dates of the ones
you want removed.

It will help if you can do the dates exactly as they are shown
in the archive. Copy and paste is prob. easiest way to do that.

One way to copy and paste the date field from the archive in Windows, is to
highlight it on the web page, and use Ctrl + C to copy, then Ctrl + V to paste.

For any who can't do that, that's alright, just give me a list of dates
and I'll go through and copy and paste it myself (unless it is hundreds
of posts or something...).

By way of example, this is my list of entries to delete

"
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:21:13
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:42:46
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:46:15
"

Another thing that might make it easier:
If you click on your name in the contents page
you will see a list of all your posts with their
dates. Another way to get to this list is to click on your name
highlighted at the top of any of your posts.

So you can just go through that list and copy and
paste the date for each one you want to delete, so
I hope it won't take that long even if you have a lot
of posts to delete. This is teh easiest way I
can think of to do this, short of doing it via
an on-line site with cgi scripts etc.

I've also added a section on deleting posts in the "About the archive"
page.

Zips of them (linked to from the contents pages as well):

http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning/html/tuning.zip
(5.3 Mb, extracts to 17.4 Mb)

http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning-math/html/tuning-math.zip
(2.3 Mb, extracts to 13.8 Mb)

http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/harmonic_entropy/html/harmonic_entropy.zip
(319 Kb, extracts to 1.94 Mb)

N.B. the html compresses very well, as you can see from these figures/
It's prob. because of the duplicated html tags in all the tables - they
compress particularly well.

Robert

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31756.html#33550

> Hi there,
>
> Here is the new tuning digests archive, with the posts of
> everyone who wanted to be in it.
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning/html/index.html
> That has all the ones I have as digests.
> Complete archive with the earlier yahoo posts and the mills posts
will be later.
>
> Also, tuning-math, complete up to date:
> http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning-
math/html/index.html
>
> Harmonic entropy - up to Nov 2001
>
http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/harmonic_entropy/html/index.
html
> I haven't got the digests from Nov 2001 to the present after all -
sorry, some confustion
> there. The ones I've got are from Nov 2000 to jan 2001.
>
> If anyone has the recent digests, I can bring it up to date.
>
> I've excluded all the from search engines via metatags to give
> you an opportunity to delete posts.
>
> The reason for the large sections is that it easier to see a
> complete list of all ones post and find which ones you want to
delete.
>
> To delete posts, send me a list of the dates of the ones
> you want removed.
>
> It will help if you can do the dates exactly as they are shown
> in the archive. Copy and paste is prob. easiest way to do that.
>
> One way to copy and paste the date field from the archive in
Windows, is to
> highlight it on the web page, and use Ctrl + C to copy, then Ctrl +
V to paste.
>
> For any who can't do that, that's alright, just give me a list of
dates
> and I'll go through and copy and paste it myself (unless it is
hundreds
> of posts or something...).
>
> By way of example, this is my list of entries to delete
>
> "
> Tue, 18 Dec 2001 04:21:13
> Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:42:46
> Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:46:15
> "
>
> Another thing that might make it easier:
> If you click on your name in the contents page
> you will see a list of all your posts with their
> dates. Another way to get to this list is to click on your name
> highlighted at the top of any of your posts.
>
> So you can just go through that list and copy and
> paste the date for each one you want to delete, so
> I hope it won't take that long even if you have a lot
> of posts to delete. This is teh easiest way I
> can think of to do this, short of doing it via
> an on-line site with cgi scripts etc.
>
> I've also added a section on deleting posts in the "About the
archive"
> page.
>
> Zips of them (linked to from the contents pages as well):
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning/html/tuning.zip
> (5.3 Mb, extracts to 17.4 Mb)
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/tuning-math/html/tuning-
math.zip
> (2.3 Mb, extracts to 13.8 Mb)
>
>
http://members.tripod.com/~tuning_archive/harmonic_entropy/html/harmon
ic_entropy.zip
> (319 Kb, extracts to 1.94 Mb)
>
> N.B. the html compresses very well, as you can see from these
figures/
> It's prob. because of the duplicated html tags in all the tables -
they
> compress particularly well.
>
> Robert

****Hi Robert

Thanks so very much for doing this work. This is a great and
important backup, particularly if somehow Yahoo goes Yaya...

However, did you ever make an archive or extract of the very early
Mills College posts? *Those* are the ones I would be particularly
interested in seeing...

best,

Joseph

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Joseph

> However, did you ever make an archive or extract of the very early
> Mills College posts? *Those* are the ones I would be particularly
> interested in seeing...

I'll do them eventually. Takes time.

If I do the complete archive all teh way back to the Mills one it
will be a large upload and probably not fit in the web space I have
available. So that will be on the cd.

Meanwhile, I need to know which posts are to be deleted from the
archive. This is only necessary for the digests; and those are
the ones I have put in the new zip. The earlier ones I downloaded
from yahoogroups should be okay as they will have left out any
deleted posts. As for Mills, I rather imagine in those days
there was no option to delete posts from the archive(??).

If anyone wants to delete posts from the digests archive,
please send me a list of all the dates for the posts to
be deleted, and then I'll be able to go on to the next
stage.

There's a bit of extra programming possibly for the Mills archives,
but hopefully not much now.

I don't know if I'll put the Mills ones on-line - unless
I find a site with more web space that they can go on,
you never know. I'm rather assuming that the most
recent ones are the best ones to make available on
line as they are more up to date, especially for
mathematical type things, where more things get
discovered and proved as time goes on.

Robert

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31756.html#33606

> I don't know if I'll put the Mills ones on-line - unless
> I find a site with more web space that they can go on,
> you never know. I'm rather assuming that the most
> recent ones are the best ones to make available on
> line as they are more up to date, especially for
> mathematical type things, where more things get
> discovered and proved as time goes on.
>
> Robert

****Hello Robert!

Thanks for all this work! Well, I guess the opposite view would say
that, unless Yahoo goes "belly up" all the more recent posts are
still available. Posts like the old Mills posts are still totally
inaccessible... at least *I* don't know how to find them, so some
might say having these *older* posts on a Website is an even *more*
valuable pursuit. Just an opinion...

Thanks again!

Joseph

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Joseph,

> Thanks for all this work! Well, I guess the opposite view would say
> that, unless Yahoo goes "belly up" all the more recent posts are
> still available. Posts like the old Mills posts are still totally
> inaccessible... at least *I* don't know how to find them, so some
> might say having these *older* posts on a Website is an even *more*
> valuable pursuit. Just an opinion...

Ah right,I see that.

I was thinking that one would need to go all the way back to them.
But if I do it as a separate archive, and leave out the ones in
between, I've still got a dozen megabytes or so free on teh web
site.

Of course, it will have rather a lot of gaps in it as one is
going a fair way back. Let's hope some of those who posted
then and no longer do find it on-line.

Anyway with all the gaps it will be smaller, and perhaps it may
fit in the space available.

I'll see what I can do. Some more progamming to do for it too, as I
mentioned.

Robert