En réponse à Costentin Cornomorus : >Mais non! I certainly don't want you out - but >can you not delete? I takes me just as much time as reading, so why bother? >There are some other minor aspects to this seive, >but that should be a good overview. In this way, >I end up reading about 40 - 60% of the total >volume. Much of that is skimming. So, I could >easily handle it if John set the limit at 400! >;)))) I used to do that. It took me just as much time as reading the posts one by one, and then afterwards I still hadn't read the ones I kept. No use... >That's a possibility. But then, I figure that if >someone really wants to get MY attention, they >can write "ATTN: CONSTANTINE C.!!" in the subject >or else write a private email. Otherwise, if >they're responding to something I wrote already; >chances are close to 1 that I'll look at a >message with a familiar subject. I don't pay much attention to subject lines, because they often have little to do with contents. So I can't use my memory of them to choose what to delete. >How so? Reading 50% of the list's messages should >take about half the time of reading all the >messages! ;) But erasing them beforehand takes so much time that no time is saved. >Sure. IF the limit were 400 (and if we ever >generated 400 messages in a day!), it would take >me the same amount of time to pare down to and >read 100 messages as it now takes you to read >every single message generated on a busy day. But it would take me 4 times more time if I just read the posts, and 8 times more time if I first skimmed through them to delete them. >Amie! I have experience in it, too, and it works >fine! For you maybe. But other people will have to cope with the consequences of the raising the daily limit, and I for one wouldn't be able to handle more posts than 100 a day, whatever the method of reading. > I used to read everything in this list (and >a few others, plus NGs). It's been a while since >I figured that a large percentage of those >messages just weren't relevant or interesting to >me. Indeed, but my experience is that it's not something you can guess from message titles. >Me I would rather take the risk of missing out on >an interesting gem or three via deletion than the >leave the list entirely, and therefore miss ALL >of them! Well, that's your way. Mine is different. >Maybe we just have different reading styles or >speeds. It takes less than a minute to go through >a hundred titles. I can't imagine how you do that! If I try doing such a thing, I end up scrolling the mails so quickly I don't have enough time to even read their titles, let alone push the delete button! > First of all, I keep in mind >the threads I was interested in from last time - >so will keep those. If I delete one message, it >takes no thought at all to delete all the others >in the same thread. I don't have that kind of memory. Moreover, threads evolve so quickly on this list that thread titles are not a good parameter to decide whether a post is interesting or not. Since moreover most posts are just a few lines long, it takes just a few second to read them, just as long as it takes to decide to delete them or not. There's just no point in doubling the effort for nothing. >Is for me! Obviously, for those of us that read >every single message, perhaps raising the limit >were not so good an idea. Indeed. And I feel even people who delete entire threads can hardly cope with more traffic than there is now. Christophe Grandsire. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.