|
|  |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: A wish list for Statalist
On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:13 PM, roy wada wrote:
Here is my personal wish list for Statlist.
1. Make HTML as the default
With free online accounts, most people should be able to access
HTML. We really should move on and make do without the HTML
gibberish and the many reminders not to use it.
I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with each of your
points. WRT HTML, there are (at least) three reasons for continuing
not to use it:
1) It wastes bandwidth and increases the size of the archives. While
these are admittedly less of an issue with today's fast internet
connections and large hard drives, those of us who participate in
many lists and must therefore manage a large amount of email
appreciate Statalist's small footprint, both in terms of the
relatively small size of its archives (I currently have postings
going back to 2000 stored on my laptop) and the resulting performance
of our mailers in manipulating (e.g., indexing or threading) folders
containing tens of thousands of Statalist messages.
2) Plain text messages do not inconvenience those with HTML-aware
mailers, while HTML-formatted mail is a major headache for those who
access their mail in a non-HTML-capable manner. Thus, HTML-formatted
mail inconveniences some individuals, while plain text email
inconveniences no one.
3) Perhaps most importantly, HTML-formatted mail reduces the
usefulness of the archives. For example, mbox-format files with
plain text messages are easy to manipulate programmatically, as for
example when building indexed web-accessible archives such as those
provided by StataCorp. Introducing HTML into individual postings can
complicate this.
For these reasons, none of the other lists I participate in (mainly
developers lists and a few users lists) permits HTML-formatted mail
either, and one of the best software packages for administering lists
(Mailman) even provides a built-in facility for automatically
stripping HTML out of incoming messages.
2. Updated forum format
There are "canned" solutions for setting up a web-based forum.
These forums are easy to use, easy on the eyes, and easy to
understand. I really would like to see Statalist upgraded into one
of these web-based format for forums (HTML-based, mind you).
We have a fair amount of experience in the use of web-based
collaboration tools, and while such things can be invaluable in
certain situations, I don't believe this is one of them. IMO,
Statalist "works" because of the participation of a group of highly
knowledgeable (and committed) individuals, who, when they are not
reading Statalist, are, I'm sure, busy with other things. Anything
that makes it more difficult for these individuals to read the list
and/or to fire off an answer to a question will make them less likely
to do so, and will therefore reduce the list's value. I do not
dispute that some web-based forums have a very straightforward and
easy-to-use interface, however I would argue that even those require
more effort than reading and responding to simple email, especially
when one does not have a continuous internet connection (e.g., when
traveling). And for those who participate in several different
lists, using a different web interface for each could be a real pain.
I have often thought that for those who develop Stata programs, a
well-designed web-based collaboration tool (think SourceForge for
Stata programmers) might be helpful. However, the current format of
Statalist seems to serve *its* main purpose (i.e., providing users
with a place to ask questions and discuss Stata-related issues) quite
well.
3. The Stata Corp should be "in" or "out"
Actually, I believe StataCorp has exactly the right relationship to
Statalist:
1) StataCorp is entirely supportive of the list's existence, and even
facilitates
its use (e.g., through providing searchable archives on its web
site)
2) StataCorp is attentive to what is being said, thereby giving users an
easy and effective means of providing feedback and airing concerns
3) StataCorp developers and technical staff make substantial
contributions in the
form of providing extraordinarily detailed responses to
questions; these not
only educate users but also help to maintain the list's high
level of discourse
4) The fact that StataCorp does not administer Statalist means that
there is
never a question about the list's openess and independence,
regardless of
whether what is being said is positive or not (from StataCorp's
perspective)
Of course, Statalist has been maintained in the past by a number of
generous people. There are good reasons for doing it this way or
that way. I personally would prefer to see something less
demanding, a little more organized, and a bit more egalitarian
I'm afraid I don't see how what you are proposing would be any less
demanding or more egalitarian than the current list. In fact, an
online forum where a "moderator" would "clean up" and reorganize
postings strikes me as both more demanding and less egalitarian.
Reading through the Digest is not as fun as it used to be. Too much
to go through before getting to the point.
To return to the point you started with, I believe there may be an
easy solution for you. Why not switch from digest to regular
delivery, and filter all Statalist messages into a dedicated
mailbox. Assuming you are using a modern mailer, you can then thread
these, search them, and even set up automatic categories (called
"Smart Mailboxes" in my mailer) based on the presence of certain
keywords or other criteria. This way the list traffic is kept out of
your way, and when you choose to look at it, you can consume it with
many of the same features found in the online forums you alluded
too. The only difference is that instead of a list moderator
organizing things for you, you can do it for yourself any way you wish.
-- Phil
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
