BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Aaron Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:18:32 EST
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (40 lines)
At the risk of beating this horse to death, and in hopes of beating
excessive quoting to death I offer the following observation.  The BEE-L
digest from yesterday (Feb 26 to Feb 27) contained 19 posts.
 
The post from David Eyre regarding 5 frame nucs was requoted in it's
entirety twice, as was the post from Troy Fore regarding Honey Board
Legislation.  Additionally there was a requote of the entire
Apistan/Mavrik post from Feb 25.  Removing this requoted material
reduced the digest by 20%!
 
The assertion, "If you don't like it use the delete key!" is fine as far
as the extraneous stuff in personal mail boxes go, and in fact, I
have trained my eye to skip over requoted material.  If there's a > in
the first column I don't read it.  Thankfully my memory is good enough
that I can remember something I read yesterday.  But delete buttons and
well trained eyes do nothing to address volume in downloads, volume in
storage and general pollution of the BEE-L archives!  I realize that if
one never searches the archives that from their point of view this is a
moot point.  "It's not my problem, why should I care?"
 
Excessive quoters should care because excessive quoting creates an
UNNECESSARY(!) problem for at least some of the BEE-L population,
and the UNNECESSARY(!) problem costs real people REAL MONEY!
PLEASE folks, even if this is not of concern to you personally, IT IS a
concern.  Rather than requoting an entire article, use the "Subject:"
line!  David Eyre's 5 nuc post was a very good post, but it did not
warrant being published three times.  One could simply have included
a "Subject: 5 frame nucs ala David Eyre" line and added their comments.
I'm not picking on Dave or those who responded, I thank them for their
thoughtful posts and am also glad to have them to make my point that
in this particular example, 173 lines of responses could have been
reduced to 50 - a 66% savings!!!  TWO THIRDS!!!!!!
 
I receive many off-list praises of BEE_L (must appreciated, thank you)
and many offers to assist if possible.  Please realize that minimizing
requoted material is something EVERYONE can do to make BEE-L a much
better and richer list.
 
Aaron Morris - I think, therefore I bee!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2