Searching \ for 'Thoughts on Identifying [OT] stuff' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=
Search entire site for: 'Thoughts on Identifying [OT] stuff'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Thoughts on Identifying [OT] stuff'
1999\08\17@184019 by William K. Borsum

flavicon
face
Greetings all:
Just wanted to toss an idea out and see if anyone salutes:

[OT] is used, in theory, to identify things that are "Off Topic" for this
list.  As has been pointed out, there are OT topics that are technical and
pertinent to the list in one way or another, and other topics that are
truly non-technical.

How about [TOT] or some such for "Technical, but Off Topic" and [NOT] for
"Not Technical, and way Off Topic"?

Would let all of us set our filters with a reasonable chance of getting the
good technical OT stuff like the discussion on SMD soldering techniques.

Kelly

****************************************************************************
********
All legitimate attachments to this email will be clearly identified in the
text.
William K. Borsum, P.E.
OEM Dataloggers and Instrumentation Systems
<spam_OUTborsumTakeThisOuTspamdascor.com> & <http://www.dascor.com>

1999\08\17@185653 by Matt Bonner

flavicon
face
"William K. Borsum" wrote:
>
> How about [TOT] or some such for "Technical, but Off Topic" and [NOT] for
> "Not Technical, and way Off Topic"?
>
> Would let all of us set our filters with a reasonable chance of getting the
> good technical OT stuff like the discussion on SMD soldering techniques.
>
Good idea - in theory.  What about the additional permutations of [OT]
that make it past the filters now?  Granted, [OT] has been well used
generally, but recently we've had subject line inclusions of:
 [Wayyyy OT]
 OT:
 (OT)
 <OT>
 [Sot]

Let's keep it simple.  My opinion is that as long as the subject is
reasonably technical, it's of general interest and, therefore, is on
topic.

--Matt

1999\08\18@062433 by Caisson

flavicon
face
> Van: William K. Borsum <.....borsumKILLspamspam@spam@DASCOR.COM>
> Aan: PICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Onderwerp: Thoughts on Identifying [OT] stuff
> Datum: woensdag 18 augustus 1999 0:37
>
> Greetings all:
> Just wanted to toss an idea out and see if anyone salutes:
>
> [OT] is used, in theory, to identify things that are "Off Topic" for this
> list.  As has been pointed out, there are OT topics that are technical
and
> pertinent to the list in one way or another, and other topics that are
> truly non-technical.
>
> How about [TOT] or some such for "Technical, but Off Topic" and [NOT] for
> "Not Technical, and way Off Topic"?

Hello Kelly,

  Creating more-and-more strings to filter on is IMHO not the way to go.
I would suggest  a single "mark" with a specification added to it.

Something like : "[OT]{specification} -"

This way an all-out filter is easily constructed, but un-filtering
sub-groups like "[OT]Cowtipping -" is feasible too ... :-)

It's the non-standard use of the [OT] mark ([Way OT] , [Somewhat OT-ish] ,
[OT to the max] , etc) that made any kind of filtering impossible :-(

Greetz,
 Rudy Wieser

1999\08\18@084609 by peterc

flavicon
face
Caisson wrote:
>

> Hello Kelly,
>
>    Creating more-and-more strings to filter on is IMHO not the way to go.
> I would suggest  a single "mark" with a specification added to it.
>
> Something like : "[OT]{specification} -"
>
> This way an all-out filter is easily constructed, but un-filtering
> sub-groups like "[OT]Cowtipping -" is feasible too ... :-)
>
> It's the non-standard use of the [OT] mark ([Way OT] , [Somewhat OT-ish] ,
> [OT to the max] , etc) that made any kind of filtering impossible :-(
>

Not all e-mail systems have filtering (e.g. Netscape 3 that I have - if
it can let me know).

How about a separate list (PICOT?) that those who don't what OT stuff
can unsubscribe from.
--
Peter Crighton

1999\08\18@104634 by Adam Davis

flavicon
face
I'm used to

[OT] for things that the majority of the list would probably have an interest
in, but don't apply directly to the 'charter' of the list

[WOT] for things which have spurred off of another thread, which many in the
list are participating in, but are not even related to anything close to the
list charter.

A new thread would never start out [wot], but could start out [ot].  If only two
people are still participating in a [wot] topic, they should continue privately,
but if several are participating then there shouldn't be a problem with allowing
this forum for it - as long as it doesn't go for _too_ long...

-Adam

My$ = "0.02"

"William K. Borsum" wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1999\08\18@144036 by William K. Borsum

flavicon
face
Caisson suggested [OT](description) as a possible.  General idea was to
have one or two consistent "keys" .
None for anything truly pic related, another for technical but not
necessarily pic related, and a third for anything not technical.  Keeps the
filters to a minimum.  Adding a new filter every time someone comes up with
a new (description) defeats the purpose.  Although adding a description to
one of the three keys is not a bad idea--I think we call it the "subject"

I think Adam has come up with a good working guideline--any way to adopt
it, or something like it as "official" policy so we can be consistent?
Kelly



At 10:45 AM 8/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm used to
>
>[OT] for things that the majority of the list would probably have an interest
>in, but don't apply directly to the 'charter' of the list
>
>[WOT] for things which have spurred off of another thread, which many in the
>list are participating in, but are not even related to anything close to the
>list charter.
>
>A new thread would never start out [wot], but could start out [ot].  If
only two
>people are still participating in a [wot] topic, they should continue
privately,
>but if several are participating then there shouldn't be a problem with
allowing
{Quote hidden}

****************************************************************************
>> ********
>> All legitimate attachments to this email will be clearly identified in the
>> text.
>> William K. Borsum, P.E.
>> OEM Dataloggers and Instrumentation Systems
>> <EraseMEborsumspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTdascor.com> & <http://www.dascor.com>
>
>
****************************************************************************
********
All legitimate attachments to this email will be clearly identified in the
text.
William K. Borsum, P.E.
OEM Dataloggers and Instrumentation Systems
<borsumspamspam_OUTdascor.com> & <http://www.dascor.com>

1999\08\18@145931 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Unless we go to the Topics idea I suggested "ages ago", nothing's
automatically enforceable - I definitely agree with using subject lines
that start with [OT] (exact string there, nothing else), for anything
OT, so filters will work;  The other thing is that we've all seen
subject lines set up like this:
 [OT] Subject matter (way OT) (long)

Personally, I'd like it a lot if we didn't suffer from terminal Subject
Line retro-editing, as it can make it really hard to read all of every
thread in some sort of coherent manner (i.e. it tends to shatter the
thread so badly that nothing makes sense <G>) - If we all do things
consistently & try to keep with the "Principle of least astonishment",
it'd be good, methinks!  Definitely good to change subject lines if
you're picking up a new, different subject (Usually, people put in a
"Was: Old Subject" pointer to the old subject, to help people figure out
what's up there.)

Some other comments one user passed to me that I'll also mention (picked
off another list, so the subject line's aren't PIC-related.);

  1) ALWAYS put topic keywords at the beginning of the Subject line
     followed by a colon (:) (e.g. "9X,NT: Helper DLLs"). If you
     don't, it's likely that no one will read your message.

 (Well, we don't have keywords on this list, yet.)

  2) When including the message to which you are replying, instead of
     including the entire message, include only enough of the message
     to establish context.

 (Probably a VERY good idea;  I use <snipped> to indicate where I've
cut things short, but I find I get lost occasionally when someone
replies to something & I dunno what they're replying to.  Enough to
remind people what you're replying to, without so much that their inbox
overflows, is a good thing to consider <G>)

  3) Please keep your tag/signature lines short.  Only your name and
     E-mail address are necessary.  If folks want the rest, they can
     send you E-mail to get it.

 (Something to think about, it's not policy here, just don't way overdo
sig lines.)

 Mark

William K. Borsum wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1999\08\24@225234 by Dave & Ann Scott

flavicon
face
William K. Borsum wrote:

> Greetings all:
> Just wanted to toss an idea out and see if anyone salutes....
  <snip>

I agree wholeheartly!  Thanks for bringing the topic up again.  This list
is a great resource but takes alot of work to keep up with.  I was gone
during part of July and ended up with a large pile to sort thru.  Currently
you can't filter out the "way OT" topics without losing the
technical-but-OT topics.

Mark Willis wrote:

> Unless we go to the Topics idea I suggested "ages ago"....
  <snip>

What will it take for us to decide this is the way to go?  Were there any
major problems/pitfalls brought up?  I think it sounded good (to me
anyway).  My guess is that most would go along with a reasonable approach.

Dave Scott

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...