Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: RE: Correct Way to Respond to Posts when Email is Turned Off


From   "Samuel R. Lucas" <lucaselastic@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: RE: Correct Way to Respond to Posts when Email is Turned Off
Date   Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:35:38 -0700

To me this goes in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" pile.  I
really do not understand the rush of people from a technology that
works well to another that may not offer any new functionality.  Such
moves often resemble taking the circular tires off of a functioning
car and installing the new, flashy, faddish square tires.  Yay.  I
have square tires.

If there is some major advanced functionality that a new approach
offers, and it does not compromise the existing functionality, then no
problem.  Often, though, something of value is lost.

I like that I do not have to remember to go check a web-site.  Nor do
I get reminders to go visit the web-site in my normal course of work.
Nor am I interrupted by an RSS feed.  Stuff comes to me in the normal
course of my activities.  If I am away, what arrived in my absence is
still sitting there and I can read or ignore it if I want.  I can
easily forward a message to someone with whom I am working if it looks
useful to the group.  My interface is not encumbered by ads, pop-ups,
or other web-clutter.  I do not have to give permission to scripting
on the page to read anything.

I admit all this was better when I did not use a gmail account for the
listserv, but I was forced to do so for local reasons.

So, count me as a "No" on this issue.
Sam

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Marcello Pagano
<pagano@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
> We almost did a few years ago, but it was a little premature then and we
> would have lost a few folks with less modern equipment.  Maybe we should
> reconsider.  Any negative votes??  Don't give me the positives, I think I
> know them.
>
> m.p.
>
>
>
> On 7/29/2011 2:19 PM, Philip Jones wrote:
>>
>> Richard Williams said:
>>
>>> Incidentally, I think correct threading is very useful. It makes it much
>>> easier if, say, you are trying to track down the answer tosomething that was
>>> already asked years ago. I like it when I can find the question and then
>>> follow the thread through. Otherwise I may have to do a bunch of googling to
>>> find all the relevant posts.
>>> I might also be happier with a web forum, but overall Statalist meets my
>>> needs very well.
>>
>> I agree that threading is quite useful.
>>
>> I followed the instructions about exactly what to put in the subject line
>> for this message, so it'll be interesting to see if it gets posted
>> correctly. In the past, my posts created according to the "rules" haven't
>> shown up correctly "in thread".
>>
>> Speaking of web forums, what is the reason that Statalist hasn't migrated
>> from its LISTSERV origins to a modern, threaded,
>> easy-to-track-what-you've-read web forum? I believe there is a good reason
>> that most discussion sites now use something like UBB or the like.
>>
>> Forgive me in advance if anyone's sensibilities are affected, but it seems
>> to me like Statalist is stuck in the 20th century. Isn't it time to move on?
>>
>> Phil
>> *
>> *   For searches and help try:
>> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
>> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
>> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index