Post by thread:[ADMIN]: All these tags...

What a pain in the butt. How about this for a possible scheme: The PICLIST is for discussion of topics specifically related to PICs. Anything else should be discussed in a different list or newsgroup. C'mon, liquid level sensing? truck tachometers? These both had [PIC]: labels. Unfused toner? yeah, maybe EE, but barely. It was MUCH quieter when I could just filter out [OT]. If this doesn't make sense, then I suggest that we include tags for every usenet newsgroup [alt.binaries.my.whole.hard.drive]:, [sci.electronics.cad]: (now there's a novel place to talk about cad systems). My point is, I subscribed to the PICLIST to get and share PIC information. Mailing list software (and mail reading software) is just not sophisticated enought to try to replace usenet, which is what you're trying to do with all these tags. Sigh... -- Phillip M. Vogel, President | "It's not what you've been taught, Bartal Design Group, Inc. | it's what you've learned." (me) 318 Marlboro Road | +1-201-567-1343 FAX:+1-201-568-2891 Englewood, NJ 07631 USA | spam_OUTphillipTakeThisOuTbartal.com

Well, you make some good points. Unfortunately the PICList is growing, and as the number of messages has increased (both on topic and off) we have had to deal with more information. Subdividing the current scheme (Two subdivisions: Regular and [OT]) into a few more subdivisions has allowed me to deal with messages more effectively. Sometimes I have time to check [PIC] [EE] [OT], etc, and sometimes I can only read a few [PIC]. Being able to tell the difference right away (and thus giving first priority to piclist specific messages) has helped me out. But hey, I'm easy. If the multiple topics idea receives a lot of bad comments, it'll go the way of the dinosaur. I can work either way. -Adam Phillip Vogel wrote: {Quote hidden}> > What a pain in the butt. How about this for a possible scheme: The PICLIST is > for discussion of topics specifically related to PICs. Anything else should be > discussed in a different list or newsgroup. > > C'mon, liquid level sensing? truck tachometers? These both had [PIC]: labels. > Unfused toner? yeah, maybe EE, but barely. It was MUCH quieter when I could > just filter out [OT]. > > If this doesn't make sense, then I suggest that we include tags for every > usenet newsgroup [alt.binaries.my.whole.hard.drive]:, [sci.electronics.cad]: > (now there's a novel place to talk about cad systems). > > My point is, I subscribed to the PICLIST to get and share PIC information. > Mailing list software (and mail reading software) is just not sophisticated > enought to try to replace usenet, which is what you're trying to do with all > these tags. Sigh... > -- > Phillip M. Vogel, President | "It's not what you've been taught, > Bartal Design Group, Inc. | it's what you've learned." (me) > 318 Marlboro Road | +1-201-567-1343 FAX:+1-201-568-2891 > Englewood, NJ 07631 USA | .....phillipKILLspam@spam@bartal.com

Um... I don't understand why you can't still filter out [OT]...???? In fact, you can filter out [EE] and [AD] as well now... isn't that better, not worse? Also, you can tell the list server to filter them out for you. I'd love to hear any specific suggestions on how we can make it better... I certainly agree that a significant number of members are still not using the tags as they should and not respecting other members time and/or desire to stay on topic, but I don't know that removing the tags will improve the situation. At least people actually have to type [PIC]: when they start a thread and it should, at least once in a while, remind them that the [PIC]: tag for PICs only. I'd like to hear your reasons for thinking that we are better off without using.... [PIC]: This label is for posts that are strictly on the topic of PICs. [EE]: This label is for topics that, while not necessarily about PICs, are of general interest to the EE community. [AD]: This label is for posts advertising a commercial product or service. [OT]: This label is for posts that are completely off the topic of PICs. When I found myself in your shoes some months ago, I starting sending little reminders to people (not via the list but directly to the poster) when I saw posts that had nothing to do with PICs and were not marked [OT]. I looks like I will never escape the need for that. Are you available to spend some time helping? Or are you aware of someone (that I'm not) who is getting paid to help moderate the list and hasn't been doing their for however long? In fact, let me just ask everyone... if you see someone posting a message that has DICK to do with PICs under the [PIC]: topic please send them a friendly little note (no need to be a butt about it) asking them to keep in mind that this tag is for PIC issues only. If you would like to use it, I've included my little message which seems to work ok. It doesn't usually cause a huge flame reaction and most often gets a "oops, sorry" response. <BLOCKQUOTE> Just a quick note: the below listed post, which you sent to the PICLIST, has nothing to do with PICs and [PIC]: was at the start of the subject line. Putting this tag at the beginning of the subject line, causes the message to be sent to people who have requested that only posts directly related to the PIC be sent to them. Consider instead adding one of the following: [EE]: This label is for topics that, while not necessarily about PICs, are of general interest to the EE community. [AD]: This label is for posts advertising a commercial product or service. [OT]: This label is for posts that are completely off the topic of PICs. The rest of this message is long winded B.S. Feel free to ignore it: Please understand, I really don't want to offend you or in any way discourage you from posting your valuable information (or funny remarks <GRIN>) to the PICLIST. I'm just pointing out that people who only want to read engineering post about the PIC would not be able to filter out your post by setting up the list server or their email program to delete non-PIC subjects. If you remember to add [EE]:, [OT]:, or [AD]: you can help retain people (resources) on the list who don't have time or bandwidth to follow non-[PIC]: posts. You can post just about anything to the PIC list. Just mark the tread [OT]: and that's enough for us. If list members don't like it... they can filter it.... As I have advised other before, if a list member doesn't like something said in a post they can send the "offenders" <GRIN> a private email asking them to mark [OT]s. If they get buried, maybe they will. ..or maybe they will drop off the list and then part of the SIGNAL will be gone forever rather than just buried in the noise. I don't want to loose your signal and I won't keep sending you this "reminder" email if you reply and tell me to stop. My goal is to keep people (like Tjaart, Scott Dattalo, and others and YOU) from leaving the list rather than have their valuable time wasted by a rash of off topic posts that are not tagged correctly. Thanks for taking the time to read this. If you have other questions about how to get the most out of the PICList, please see the PICList FAQ at: http://www.piclist.com </BLOCKQUOTE> If enough people agree, and do this... mbar it will work better... That's the best idea I have. --- James Newton (PICList Admin #3) jamesnewtonKILLspampiclist.com 1-619-652-0593 PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org {Original Message removed}

On 5 Jun 2000, at 14:27, Phillip Vogel wrote: {Quote hidden}> What a pain in the butt. How about this for a possible scheme: The > PICLIST is for discussion of topics specifically related to PICs. > Anything else should be discussed in a different list or newsgroup. > > C'mon, liquid level sensing? truck tachometers? These both had [PIC]: > labels. Unfused toner? yeah, maybe EE, but barely. It was MUCH quieter > when I could just filter out [OT]. > > If this doesn't make sense, then I suggest that we include tags for > every usenet newsgroup [alt.binaries.my.whole.hard.drive]:, > [sci.electronics.cad]: (now there's a novel place to talk about cad > systems). > > My point is, I subscribed to the PICLIST to get and share PIC > information. Mailing list software (and mail reading software) is just > not sophisticated enought to try to replace usenet, which is what > you're trying to do with all these tags. Sigh... -- Phillip M. Vogel, > President | "It's not what you've been taught, Bartal Design Group, > Inc. | it's what you've learned." (me) 318 Marlboro Road > | +1-201-567-1343 FAX:+1-201-568-2891 Englewood, NJ 07631 USA > | .....phillipKILLspam.....bartal.com > I sort of agree. In fact, I actually do agree, but before we throw all this crap out, I do want to start a thread on how to remove stains from clothes since I must launder some clothes that I used whilst rebuilding an engine. And maybe I could slip in a thread on how to install pasture fence posts, and ....Well, I guess you are right. We really should throw all the crap out and stick to the subject of PIC. I *DO* agree. Don

Other moments already posted.... > > > What a pain in the butt. How about this for a possible scheme: The > > PICLIST is for discussion of topics specifically related to PICs. > > Anything else should be discussed in a different list or newsgroup. > > > > C'mon, liquid level sensing? truck tachometers? These both had [PIC]: > > labels. Unfused toner? yeah, maybe EE, but barely. It was MUCH quieter > > when I could just filter out [OT]. > > ...... > > > I sort of agree. In fact, I actually do agree, but before we throw all > this crap out, I do want to start a thread on how to remove stains > from clothes since I must launder some clothes that I used whilst > rebuilding an engine. And maybe I could slip in a thread on how to > install pasture fence posts, and ....Well, I guess you are right. We > really should throw all the crap out and stick to the subject of PIC. I > *DO* agree. > Don I guess all this has been explored "to the max" but the problem for me is.. at what point is a topic not directly related to PICs? Are Power Hexfets in or out? , motors and motor control? I am writing hundreds of lines of code for motor control using PICs right now so I am VERY interested in any topics re motors etc. The same would be true for the guy with the diesel engine tacho. Since PIC stands for Peripheral Interface Controller then to ban Peripheral control topics would seem a might myopic (accidental pun!). An endless stream of nothing but USART, I2C , sleep problems and external memory issues would surely be equally nauseating as too many OTs? Just my $12.75 worth (the NZ dollar is dropping fast!) _____________________________ Lance Allen Technical Officer Uni of Auckland Psych Dept New Zealand http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz _____________________________

Hi, >I'd love to hear any specific suggestions on how we can make it better... >I certainly agree that a significant number of members are still not using >the tags as they should and not respecting other members time and/or desire >to stay on topic, but I don't know that removing the tags will improve the >situation. At least people actually have to type [PIC]: when they start a >thread and it should, at least once in a while, remind them that the [PIC]: >tag for PICs only. I'd like to hear your reasons for thinking that we are >better off without using.... Hmm..reading the comments on this I think I've been convinced that this just might be 'the right thing'. And looking more closely to the recent postings I also must confess that the 'mess' I saw is mostly due to subject line LACKING these tags. [I'm] [all] [for][.] /Tony Tony KŸbek, Flintab AB ÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ E-mail: KILLspamtony.kubekKILLspamflintab.com ÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ

Lance, I agree. This is really not a PIC list it's an embedded controller list focusing on using PIC processors. If we were limited to only discussing PIC software, this place would cease to exist.... - Tom At 11:17 AM 6/6/00 +1200, Lance Allen wrote: [snip] {Quote hidden}>I guess all this has been explored "to the max" but the problem for >me is.. at what point is a topic not directly related to PICs? > >Are Power Hexfets in or out? , motors and motor control? I am >writing hundreds of lines of code for motor control using PICs right >now so I am VERY interested in any topics re motors etc. > >The same would be true for the guy with the diesel engine tacho. > >Since PIC stands for Peripheral Interface Controller then to ban >Peripheral control topics would seem a might myopic (accidental >pun!). > >An endless stream of nothing but USART, I2C , sleep problems >and external memory issues would surely be equally nauseating as >too many OTs? > >Just my $12.75 worth (the NZ dollar is dropping fast!) >_____________________________ > >Lance Allen >Technical Officer >Uni of Auckland >Psych Dept >New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Handley New Age Communications Since '75 before "New Age" and no one around here is waiting for UFOs ;-)

So Tom< What is the % of market for PIC, Atmel, Motorola, etc. Let's say for devices in the F84 and F873 market range? Can anybody point me to that data? Phil On Wednesday, June 07, 2000 2:28 AM, Tom Handley [SMTP:RemoveMEthandleyTakeThisOuTTELEPORT.COM] wrote: {Quote hidden}> Lance, I agree. This is really not a PIC list it's an embedded > controller list focusing on using PIC processors. If we were limited > to only discussing PIC software, this place would cease to exist.... > > - Tom > > At 11:17 AM 6/6/00 +1200, Lance Allen wrote: > [snip] > >I guess all this has been explored "to the max" but the problem for > >me is.. at what point is a topic not directly related to PICs? > > > >Are Power Hexfets in or out? , motors and motor control? I am > >writing hundreds of lines of code for motor control using PICs right > >now so I am VERY interested in any topics re motors etc. > > > >The same would be true for the guy with the diesel engine tacho. > > > >Since PIC stands for Peripheral Interface Controller then to ban > >Peripheral control topics would seem a might myopic (accidental > >pun!). > > > >An endless stream of nothing but USART, I2C , sleep problems > >and external memory issues would surely be equally nauseating as > >too many OTs? > > > >Just my $12.75 worth (the NZ dollar is dropping fast!) > >_____________________________ > > > >Lance Allen > >Technical Officer > >Uni of Auckland > >Psych Dept > >New Zealand > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Tom Handley > New Age Communications > Since '75 before "New Age" and no one around here is waiting for UFOs ;-)