excessive amounts of included text

Robert Scott rscott@wwnet.net
Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:11:52 -0500


Robert Goodale sarcastically remarked:

 >Your right.  Allllllll that wasted bandwidth is inter fearing with napster
 >downloads.  After all, text uses soooooooooo much space.

The point is, Robert, that it is darned impolite to make everyone on the
list sort through more junk than they have to.  Sure, it's hard to get
concerned over the time wasted by computers.  But this is about real
people.  Just think how much more pleasurable an experience it would be
to receive succinct postings with text from other messages quoted and
included only where necessary to the understanding of new posting.

Anyone who opts to receive pianotech in digest form or by browsing
the archives has to manually page through so much quoted text that it
is hard to find original material.

When you quote a previous posting and repost it to pianotech, remember,
you are not providing us with new information.  We are on pianotech.
We have already seen that old posting (unless it is several weeks old,
in which case we may have forgotten.)  When someone quotes an entire
posting without any attempt to cut it down to the essentials, they are
saying to the rest of us, "I don't think enough of you people to
spend a few seconds highlighting only what is necessary." or "I'm too
lazy - I'll just hit reply".  I wonder how often someone hits
"reply" just to put "pianotech@ptg.org" in the To: field and just
doesn't bother to delete the automatically included text.  I have
even seen on several occasions an entire digest of pianotech quoted
and included just because someone who received pianotech in digest
form clicked on reply and didn't care that he was including the
whole digest.

So you count me as one of those who feel just a little insulted
every time we receive a thoughtless posting with too much
included text.

-Robert Scott
  Ypsilanti, Michigan



This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC