I may be confused (by spending my whole life upside down relative to you
folks) but the suggestion of cross-posting seems to me to be completely
counter-productive. We have a big, active list containing a lot of stuff
that is not relevant to many of the subscribers. We create a number of
smaller more specialised lists to cater for those with special interests.
And now you suggest that the members of the special lists cross-post to
the general list with the result that everyone who is on even one special
list plus the general list will get two copies of everything that is
cross-posted.
If, and it appears that it has happened, law-lib has spawned a number of
'sons (or daughters) of law-lib' then I believe the onus is on each
subscriber/poster to post to the "right" list and keep cross-posting
(clutter) down to a minimum.
-Hugh
Hugh Malcolm email: hm@libserver.canberra.edu.au
Law Librarian tel.: 061 06 201 5279
University of Canberra fax: 061 06 201 5068
P.O. Box 1 Belconnen ACT 2616
Australia
On Wed, 29 Dec 1993, ray lytle wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly
>
> Ray A. Lytle - Tulane Law Library
>
> >
> > i do not plan on subscribing to any additional
> > lists other than law-lib. so would appreciate
> > the cross posting to law-lib. i do not have the
> > time to subscribe to multiple lists and then have
> > to read so many duplicated messages, yet i do
> > like hearing about the concerns of all types of
> > law libraries since we have more in common together
> > than as individual lists.
> >
> > Izabela Cieszynski <icieszyn@leo.vsla.edu>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST