Re: st: A wish list for Statalist

["roy wada" <roywada@hotmail.com>]

Phil Schumm raised a number of issues, mainly to the effect that the status 
quo is just fine.

1. HTML

Let's just say that the bandwidth is not an issue at all. The requried 
bandwidth and hard drive space for HTML would be dirt cheap. Not having HTML 
is currently inconveniencing many people, as discussed many times on the 
list, who have difficult times turning off HTML and the rest of us having to 
see it. If your email account is filtering HTML, then add Statalist to your 
protected list. This is not an issue.

HTML has nice features, like having the texts line up correctly. I have seen 
people adding a return characters (hit "enter") at the end of every line in 
order make it look pretty. This type of primitive solutions would not be 
necessary with HTML. I would say that a majority of email accounts come with 
HTML as the default, and that there are many lists which do allow HTML. 
Archiving is archiving, with or without HTML. They can deal with it.

2. Updated forum format

Having posted to Statalist a number of times, I would say that it is more 
time consuming to answer a simple question under the current set up. Take 
this thread, for example. In order to post this reply, I had to go through 
my email account, make sure the subject line is correct, and aim it at the 
Harvard server. If I made an error in the posting, I cannot even fix it 
except by making more postings.

By having a web-based Statalist, the threads will always line up correctly. 
One click and you are good to go. Easily editied. I don't have to hunt down 
previous postings. It lowers the hurdles towards online discussion. I don't 
have to deal with multiple windows in order to get the necessary information 
in front of me. I would say that having to use my own mailer to "thread 
these, search them, and even set up automatic categories," is merely raising 
hurdles against the online communication.

Having looked at other "expert listings," and having read few comments said 
there, I would say that the current set up at Statalist is actually reducing 
the amount of expertise available. I would also say that having to go 
through the email has signficantly reduced my own posting to Statalist 
(which may not be a bad thing).

The people doing the asking are motivated, so they will go through the 
hurdles. The people doing the answering, well, these people are generous as 
I have said before. The resident experts are indeed dedicated, and if I were 
one, I would want a dedicated interface for it. If I were a resident expert, 
how far should I go out of my way to help someone? Why should anyone go 
through all these trouble to help someone?

People have complained about bad postings (i.e. stupid questions) on the 
Statalist precisely because the current set up is forcing everyone to having 
to shift through them. Sub-categories, as chosen by the poster and not the 
moderator, would greater reduce such shiftings.

3. The Stata Corp

Statalist is a public good (the non-rival kind). Who should put efforts into 
producing an updated format of the kind I had originally proposed? The Stata 
Corp is not currently doing it, since Statalist is supposed to be maintained 
by the volunteers. I don't think it would be fair to ask Marcello to spend 
more hours setting it up. I am not offering to do it, since I am not as 
vested in maintaining it as the Stata Corp is, although some people may feel 
differently in absence of parties with larger vested interests.


> 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.
I said earlier that "reading through the Digest is not as fun as it used to 
be." Statalist has always been messy, so that was not the point. It is not 
as fun for me because both the quality and the quantity of postings appear 
to be slipping. I think it happened after we went off the Yahoo listings, 
but that could be a coincidence. I do believe the Digest has been somewhat 
erratic during the past year.


> 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.
Let's not misconstrue. For the record, it's LESS DEMANDING to use, MORE 
EGALITARIAN by lowering the hurdles, and the MODERATOR for fixing the broken 
threads, which often stay broken in Statalist. It's bad for archiving, which 
is one of the primary attraction for Statalist. Some people have, in the 
past, fixed broken threads by reposting the entire exchanges verbatim, which 
in my opinion is a messy way for fixing things, and forcing everyone to see 
it again.

FWIW, the preceeding paragraph could have been emphasized better using HTML 
italics AND posted much faster using an updated web-based forum format. I 
have to say that having to go through multiple windows in writing this reply 
is sucking up my time.

_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! �MSN Shopping 
Sales & Deals 
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639

*
*   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/