heiby@cuae2.UUCP (Heiby) (08/30/85)
I was intending to post this in mod.unix exclusively, as it is the (belated)
summary of the responses that the readership of that digest sent to me when
I asked if mod.unix should remain in digest format.
--------
In response to my query, I received 12 messages in favor of keeping digest
format, 9 in favor of going to individual postings, and a couple that were
just general comments. Based on this response, I have decided to keep
mod.unix as a digest. Here is a summary of the comments I received.
Thanks to everyone who responded. Ron.
Summary of pro-digest messages:
----
I prefer the digest format because it is easier to skim; I can just look at
the subject list and decide (1) whether to read that issue and (2) how many
messages I can automatically skip on the way to the message I want. It takes
me a lot longer to deal with individual messages, especially since the
advertised topics probably aren't accurate. This is why I stopped reading
net.unix and net.unix-wizards.
----
Please keep the digest form. I archive mod.unix, and digests
give me lower disk fragmentation. I use rn, so am less bothered
by the low speed problem, even when I read news from home (like now).
----
Here's my vote: keep it a digest. Easier to read, to maintain, and
to archive, and as you say, less traffic and disk resources are consumed.
----
Here's one vote for keeping mod.unix as a digest. In addition to the
advantages you mentioned, digests also have the advantage of keeping
related articles near each other.
----
I much prefer the digest format. All the points you give in its
favor are valid, and I would add another: the smaller amount of
traffic in the newsgroup is just easier to deal with (for me,
anyway). I'd much rather read a digest less often than individual
articles more often. Please keep mod.unix as a digest.
Summary of anti-digest messages [with my comments]:
----
Now if rn were smart enought to work
with digests... (or if I were smart enought to figure out a nice way
of having rn work with digests...)
[Great news! Version 4.3 of rn is smart enough to work with digests
(at least for some things). There is the "gpattern" pager level request,
which searches forward for "pattern" in the current article. There is
"G", which searches for the same "pattern" again. There is "^G", which
"is a special version of the 'g' command that is for skipping articles
in a digest. It is equivalent to setting '-g4' and then executing the
command 'g^Subject:'."]
----
Never mind the baud rate, it's much easier to read selectively if the
articles are posted separately. Lumping them together just means that
the reader is likely to junk the whole thing rather than take the time
to skip through all the uninteresting stuff just to get to the only
article (s)he wants to read (invariably the last one!).
[The search capabilities of "rn" virtually eliminate this objection.]
----
Aren't the articles batched for transmission anyway, so you don't gain
anything by lumping them all together....?
[No. Cycles are used to install and parse articles and disk space is
lost to headers and partial disk block use.]
----
I often like to read an
article or two during a compile or a lint. If the articles are bunched up,
I have to read part of a digest, then mark it unread if I can't finish
it right away. Then next time I read news I have to skip over the part
of the article I've already read...
[Good point, ghough rn's search can help as well as using the ! escape
to start other commands from within the news reader. (or buy a DMD5620!)]
----
I might add to this, Ron, that although it seems like kind of a silly
thing to complain about, it makes a psychological difference; when
you're reading a huge posting, you just don't have that feeling that
you can "knock off a few articles" and go home. The feeling is more
that you *know* you will be interrupted in the middle of an article and
then will have to figure out where you were... I can't quite put my
finger on it but that's why I usually put off reading mod.unix 'till
"later when I have some time" which is usually never!
[I understand the feeling. I do it myself sometimes.]
----
I too would prefer breaking it up into separate articles since
that makes it easier to respond to a particular article.
[Good point. Maybe this should be a future enhancement to rn (if it
doesn't already). (Reminder: The Path header line isn't necessarily
a valid/optimal return address, especially if I am posting it from
my machine and the originator is not on my machine.)]
----
I would also prefer separate messages, for the reason of better
selectivity. You perform the service of cutting the message traffic down
to just the "good" articles, but only I can cut it down to
subtopics-of-interest by examining the subject lines.
[Good news reading software can help this.]
----
I would prefer individual articles. It gives you better possibilities to
read parts of the group, and come back later. If you are a bit behind, you
might wish to read all articles on a certain topic at the same time, and
wait with the rest of the group.
[This is a good point. I have no good answer. The rn "m" or "M" command
can be used to mark the article (digest) as still unread, then you can
return to it and use the "g" command to find the part to which you want
to reply. Another thing is that with a moderated newsgroup, duplicate
answers get trimmed down (at least in mod.unix) so that they appear only
if they provide new information or present it in a clearer/different
manner.]
--
Ron Heiby {NAC|ihnp4}!cuae2!heiby Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.unix
AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL (312) 810-6109
"No; my legs are written in a functional programming language." (J. McKie)
--
Ron Heiby {NAC|ihnp4}!cuae2!heiby Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.unix
AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL (312) 810-6109
"No; my legs are written in a functional programming language." (J. McKie)