Re: [vox] modification to the archive

[Ted Deppner <ted@psyber.coMAPSm>]

I'm not interested, nor was it my intent to cause a rift.

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 09:31:47AM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> it's easier to describe content than it is to convey a message.
> 
> a subject conveys a message.   a keyword is a 1 or 2 word description of
> content.
> 
> seems obvious to me.  i guess not to you.

I believe the subject should prepare the reader for the bulk and intent of
the message content.  It can be anything that performs that task, keywords
with some connectors to aid readability, a summary message, etc.

It is my expectation that your keywords header should be a subset of the
subject line and the message content... and I believe a good subject and
good content would meet the searchability desire.

> > PS a better subject may have been: Q re keywords header to aid list searches
>  
> it's hard for me to tell if you're just being argumentative or if you really
> hate the idea.  it seems to crystal clear to me.  maybe the problem is you
> haven't done much library research.  i dunno.

I'm making the simple point that with the best predictor of future
behavior being prior behavior, you'll likely see less-than-useful keywords
from people who also use less-than-useful subject lines.

I personally believe that a good subject line, and well written content
provide more than enough context and 'hooks' to allow a successful search.

While I'm not sure where "library research" comes into play, I do perform
many Google searches, and mutt assisted searches of my copious mail
archive quite regularly, and these are the primary methods search methods
I use.

Please accept my apologies for the tone of my previous email.

-- 
Ted Deppner
http://www.psyber.com/~ted/
_______________________________________________
vox mailing list
vox@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox