Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:10:33 -0500
Reply-To: "Muhlbaier, Lawrence H." <lawrence.muhlbaier@DUKE.EDU>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "Muhlbaier, Lawrence H." <lawrence.muhlbaier@DUKE.EDU>
Organization: Duke Clinical Research Institute
Subject: Re: Netiquette on SAS-L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'd like to comment on Jim's first two points; the first problem is technical
rather than netiquette and the second is, IMHO, a style issue.
1) The threads do get long and sometime duplicative, but not because of the
reason he thought. It can't really be avoided. SAS-L is duplicated across many
servers and is also cross-listed with the internet newsgroup comp.soft-sys.sas
. These multiple pathways induce delays. For instance, I use the newsgroup and
it often takes half a day for my postings to show back up to me.
I also think that seeing the partial answers evolve into a cohesive ending helps
me think about how SAS works and the interrelationships that are at play, as
well as multiple possible solutions to a single problem.
2) I personally find it nice to have the entire question and responses in one
place. Context is important to understanding. Further, with the newsgroup
approach, messages time out afer a while and saving is not automatic. For local
reasons, getting SAS-L via mail is not a viable option for me.
Jim Groeneveld wrote:
> IMHO SAS-L could need some efficiency improvements, to be effectuated by
> a change in the attitudes and postings of (replying) contributors.
> I have been subscribed to SAS-L since mid October 1999 and find it very
> worthwhile, though sometimes too much and too irrelevant as well.
> I would like to explain my views and to propose some alternatives:
> 1. Sometimes threads (chains or branches of messages on a subject) are
> unnecessary long. This may be due to responding too quickly to a posted
> issue, without checking whether the isue has been resolved satisfactory
> already. Every morning I find tens of contributions in my mail box.
> Although I may have a useful idea on a certain issue in one of the
> messages I firstly check whether the same idea hasn't already been posted
> by someone else. If so, I won't reply.
> 2. Often contributions are unnecessary long because complete (long) original
> messages and whole threads up to then are sent along. Though these may be
> informative, I would suggest to limit these additions to the most
> parts of the immediately preceeding messages only. If I want to see more
> of the thread I'll just look into my mailbox where I store all messages.
Lawrence H. ('Doc') Muhlbaier firstname.lastname@example.org
Assistant Research Professor
Duke University Medical Center 919-668-8774 (office)
DUMC 3865 919-383-0595 (home)
Durham, NC 27710-7510 919-668-7057 (FAX)