Re: List Filtration (a.k.a.: Signal to Noise Ratio)

Mark Grant (mark@unicorn.com)
Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:46:50 +0000


On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

> someone said:
> > The value isn't in limiting
> > the number of posts in any ole way, it's in somehow increasing the
> > average (reader-perceived) quality of posts.

In that case I would say that the old list subscription scheme worked -- I
was still skipping half the messages, but because they were so technical
that I didn't have enough time to read up on the background, not because
they were "low-quality".

> make a specific commitment to supporting it. The other objection
> raised to my idea is valid--that it hasn't worked historically. And
> this is not a tax in any way--it is a fee for services provided.

I think this was the biggest problem -- the old list was very unreliable,
and while I'll forgive that on a free list it's really unacceptable when
I'm paying for it. This is the same reason why I give away my software and
don't charge for any of my Web pages (e.g. the car ads). I don't have to
be so concerned about reliability if it's free.

The other problem, of course, is paying for it. Foreign users have a hard
time paying small dollar amounts by check, and sending credit card numbers
over the Net is still potentially dangerous.

Mark

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.c2.org/~mark MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|