From: mck@YP.melb.bull.com (Mike Kitchen)
Subject: ADMIN: Blip inventor speaks (Was Re: MODERATOR'S NOTES: 
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1992 01:51:54 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Australia.



sds@jazzie.wa.com (Sean Shapira) writes:

>In article <1992Jan28.184755.22765@milton.u.washington.edu> you write:

>>One proposal I would like to put before the Group Mind is to preface the
>>"Subject:" with a one-word key, like "TECH," "PHIL," or "IND" -- for,
>>in this example, technical, philosophical, and industrial.  I know that
>>this injects my subjective reading of a posting's appropriate category,
>>but so does the arbitrary designation of a separate newsgroup title
>>force the issue.

>Better clarify who be inserting key(s) into the Subject line.
>The poster?  Or you?

>Also, how will you handle those who want the subject line to stay
>consistent from message to message on a thread so they can "kill"
>subjects not of interest?  If the first message on a subject is
>"PHIL" but someone responds with a pretty "TECH"-oriented reply,
>would the subject line change?

>Just thoughts from one of those group mind cells...

Being the originator of the suggestion (I didn't know other groups have
tried this method of categorization), I think we should at least try
the idea in practice as, indeed, some posters already have.  Sean makes
a valid point about protocol and, again, a trial of the idea will show if
some rules need to be imposed.  But, after all, it WAS only intended to be
a simple solution to a potentially complex issue and as such will NOT cover
all situations.  Some common sense will be necessary.

As for Sean's last point, I think for reasons of consistency, the
originator's (or moderator's) categorization of a posting should stay the
same for the life of the thread.  If the subject drifts into another
category, the moderator may intervene and request a new thread be started.
Don't posters do this sometimes anyway?

Let's give it a try for say a month or two and, sure, if it's not working
try something else.

Mike Kitchen (Bull HN Information Systems Australia Pty. Ltd.)
mck@melb.bull.oz.au


[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  I've gotten lots of mail on this which I've not
posted.  It's mostly in favor of the blips (about 2:1), with the proviso
that they be clear in meaning and not arbitrarily truncated into unin-
telligibility.  I think that's a wise course; and we can always change.
Please stay in touch and tell me how this is working.  Thanks for all 
the input! -- Bob Jacobson]