google tuning group

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/tuning/

I think there's little question we'll eventually be
on google. When to move and how to move are totally
up in the air.

For the record: I don't want anything to do with
moderating the new group. However, I'm suggesting
our other moderators Joe Pehrson and Gene Smith
have a look. Also, I'd like to 'call out' Jacob
Barton and David Bowen. Are you guys interested?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54557.html#54557

> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/tuning/
>
> I think there's little question we'll eventually be
> on google. When to move and how to move are totally
> up in the air.
>
> For the record: I don't want anything to do with
> moderating the new group. However, I'm suggesting
> our other moderators Joe Pehrson and Gene Smith
> have a look. Also, I'd like to 'call out' Jacob
> Barton and David Bowen. Are you guys interested?
>
> -Carl

***Sure, I'm interested. Is this a truly *threaded* list? That
would be a big improvement, of course, since we could just follow the
topics were are interested in, rather than having to read the "whole
thing..."

I already had a Google Usenet account...

But I'm awaiting "approval" to join at present.

I would suggest looking carefully at the final website
before "migrating..." There are 700 people to "migrate" as well...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_54557.html#54557

> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/tuning/
>
> I think there's little question we'll eventually be
> on google. When to move and how to move are totally
> up in the air.
>
>

***Oh... I do, though, have a comment already. At a composers group
over the weekend I told somebody about this group. I just said they
could find it by Googling "Yahoo Groups" and then searching
for "Tuning..."

It comes up right away "Alternate Tuning List."

The "tuning" list on Google is not like this at all. There are
*thousands* of pages of "tuning" groups... probably because there are
so many Usenet groups.

So it would be considerably harder to find, unless it had a *very*
specific name, I believe.

Let me know if I'm "all wet" on this... since it may be important...

J. Pehrson

>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/tuning/
>>
>> I think there's little question we'll eventually be
>> on google. When to move and how to move are totally
>> up in the air.
>>
>> For the record: I don't want anything to do with
>> moderating the new group. However, I'm suggesting
>> our other moderators Joe Pehrson and Gene Smith
>> have a look. Also, I'd like to 'call out' Jacob
>> Barton and David Bowen. Are you guys interested?
>>
>> -Carl
>
>***Sure, I'm interested. Is this a truly *threaded* list?

You bet. In fact, I can personally guarantee it will be
far superior to yahoo, in every respect, in the long run.

>That would be a big improvement, of course, since we could
>just follow the topics were are interested in, rather than
>having to read the "whole thing..."

Ah. I haven't tested that functionality, but you can bet
it'll work nicely with gmail, which you and everybody you
know will be using before long. But if you shoot on over
to the list I set up, you can check out the "Watch this
thread" feature. If you want my help testing it, let me
know -- I'll send messages to a thread you create and
"watch", and also to one you're not "watching".

>I already had a Google Usenet account...
>
>But I'm awaiting "approval" to join at present.

Hmm. Strange. It is a beta, so we should be patient.

>I would suggest looking carefully at the final website
>before "migrating..." There are 700 people to "migrate" as well...

Yes, forbearance is the watchword, as it were.

I must especially watch out. I'm such a fan of google I'd
hand over the federal government to them in a heartbeat.
I'd inject google straight into my veins if it came in
injectable form. So I'm best advised site back, smoke a
blunt, and take it easy.

:):)

-Carl

>***Oh... I do, though, have a comment already. At a composers group
>over the weekend I told somebody about this group. I just said they
>could find it by Googling "Yahoo Groups" and then searching
>for "Tuning..."
>
>It comes up right away "Alternate Tuning List."
>
>The "tuning" list on Google is not like this at all. There are
>*thousands* of pages of "tuning" groups... probably because there are
>so many Usenet groups.
>
>So it would be considerably harder to find, unless it had a *very*
>specific name, I believe.
>
>Let me know if I'm "all wet" on this... since it may be important...

No, that's a good observation. But the thing to remember is that
on yahoo, we're huge. The group I set up on google has only two
messages. Once again, I'm very confident google will work as only
google can. Be still my heart!

-Carl

> >I would suggest looking carefully at the final website
> >before "migrating..." There are 700 people to "migrate" as well...

360 of which's emails are already bouncing...I partly made the poll just to see how
many people are actually here. Should have added an option "I'm away, but I'll be
back."

Carl wrote:
>I'm such a fan of google I'd
>hand over the federal government to them in a heartbeat.
>I'd inject google straight into my veins if it came in
>injectable form. So I'm best advised site back, smoke a
>blunt, and take it easy.

There are people with serious apprehensions about
Google though: http://google-watch.org
Remarkably, they are still at 4.285.199.774 webpages
today, http://www.google-watch.org/broken.html

Manuel

>>I'm such a fan of google I'd
>>hand over the federal government to them in a heartbeat.
>>I'd inject google straight into my veins if it came in
>>injectable form. So I'm best advised site back, smoke a
>>blunt, and take it easy.
>
>There are people with serious apprehensions about
>Google though: http://google-watch.org

I hate those people!

:)

-Carl

on 7/12/04 8:31 PM, Jacob <jbarton@rice.edu> wrote:

>>> I would suggest looking carefully at the final website
>>> before "migrating..." There are 700 people to "migrate" as well...
>
> 360 of which's emails are already bouncing...I partly made the poll just to
> see how
> many people are actually here. Should have added an option "I'm away, but
> I'll be
> back."

Hmm. Well the whole poll thing was pretty confusing to me. I certainly
didn't get the poll, wasn't convinced it was real, thought it was someone
else (not Jacob) who had written it, etc.

In spite of that I'm getting all tuning list messages just fine, as far as I
can tell. So what am I missing?

-Kurt

> Hmm. Well the whole poll thing was pretty confusing to me. I certainly
> didn't get the poll, wasn't convinced it was real, thought it was someone
> else (not Jacob) who had written it, etc.

Sorry for any confusion. The choices are kinda bad too, but just pick the closest one.

> In spite of that I'm getting all tuning list messages just fine, as far as I
> can tell. So what am I missing?
>
> -Kurt

It's possible to be a member and not subscribe to the messages. It is unreasonable to
believe that 300 people recieved an email containing the poll announcement and only
12 responded. Unless most of them don't get the emails or categorically delete them.
Just thinking...

Jacob

Jacob,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:
> Sorry for any confusion. The choices are kinda bad too, but just
pick the closest one.

There *isn't* one that reflected, even closely, how I feel about the
tuning list.

> It is unreasonable to
> believe that 300 people recieved an email containing the poll
announcement and only
> 12 responded.

No it isn't. This list has had a very short history of really stupid
polls, and yours probably just got lumped into that. Counting along
with the above mention about how there wasn't an appropriate choice
for me to use, why would I vote?

If you REALLY want some kind of poll to take the temperature of the
list, or to try and get a handle on what the membership is like, you
have to give more thought to the questions.

Frankly, I think the work you've done on Saggital is a LOT more important!

Cheers,
Jon

> There *isn't* one that reflected, even closely, how I feel about the
> tuning list.

People don't fit into nice little boxes very easily, do they?

> This list has had a very short history of really stupid
> polls, and yours probably just got lumped into that. Counting along
> with the above mention about how there wasn't an appropriate choice
> for me to use, why would I vote?
>
> If you REALLY want some kind of poll to take the temperature of the
> list, or to try and get a handle on what the membership is like, you
> have to give more thought to the questions.

*sigh*. Okay. I'll redo it.

Cheese, :)
Jacob

Jacob,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:
> People don't fit into nice little boxes very easily, do they?

Well, the boxes are nice, but they are of many different shapes and
sizes, and there are a whole hell of a lot of them! :)

> *sigh*. Okay. I'll redo it.

Up to you, but frankly I don't know of many polls on this list over
the last 4 years or so that got many more respondents. Maybe you could
go get a manicure or build a ship in a bottle instead?

Cheers,
Jon

on 7/13/04 9:28 PM, Jacob <jbarton@rice.edu> wrote:

>> Hmm. Well the whole poll thing was pretty confusing to me. I certainly
>> didn't get the poll, wasn't convinced it was real, thought it was someone
>> else (not Jacob) who had written it, etc.
>
> Sorry for any confusion. The choices are kinda bad too, but just pick the
> closest one.

Sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was I didn't *receive* the poll. I only
received one or more messages which quoted the poll, and eventually poll
results which appeared to have nothing whatsoever to do with the poll, IIRC.

I receive tunings message via email.

-Kurt

>
>> In spite of that I'm getting all tuning list messages just fine, as far as I
>> can tell. So what am I missing?
>>
>> -Kurt
>
> It's possible to be a member and not subscribe to the messages. It is
> unreasonable to
> believe that 300 people recieved an email containing the poll announcement and
> only
> 12 responded. Unless most of them don't get the emails or categorically delete
> them.
> Just thinking...
>
> Jacob

> > *sigh*. Okay. I'll redo it.
>
> Up to you, but frankly I don't know of many polls on this list over
> the last 4 years or so that got many more respondents. Maybe you could
> go get a manicure or build a ship in a bottle instead?

(Or design a microtonal fingering system for woodwinds)

Too late. Everyone go vote (again). A minute of your precious time, for me.

/tuning/polls