---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -----------------------
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:23:41 HST
From:         Carol Schaafsma <CAROLS@UHUNIX>
Subject:      Re: The problem of multiple postings

 *  ---------------------------- Text of forwarded message --------------------
 * Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:20:21 EDT
 * From:         Stevan Harnad <harnad@PRINCETON.EDU>
 * Subject:      The problem of multiple postings
 *
 * > Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:33:00 EDT
 * > Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
 * >               and Access" <VPIEJ-L@VTVM1.BITNET>
 * > From: Bill Drew -- Serials Librarian <DREWWE%SNYMORVA.bitnet@VTVM1.CC.VT.E
 * >
 * > Is there any reason why the discussion of referreeing of ejournal must
 * > be carried out on four different lists?  Why does it need to be on
 * > PACS-L as well as the lists specializing in ejournals?  How many
 * > people are truly unique to just one of the four?  I subscribe to all
 * > four because the material interests me not because I want to see the
 * > same item four times.  Please consider this comment.
 *
 * The problem of what to do about multiple lists with overlapping but
 * non-identical subscriberships and subject matter is simply not solved,
 * and I would be interested in a solution too. Here are the factors
 * involved:
 *
 * If one has information on a topic that is of interest to several lists,
 * one can either post only to one of the lists, so as not to risk sending
 * multiple postings to the same individual -- but then that is at the
 * expense of NOT reaching the non-overlapping portions of the lists -- or
 * one can post to them all, and then risk drawing complaints from those
 * who received the message more than once.
 *
 * At the moment, there is no ideal solution. Not all topics are matched
 * exactly to one and only one list. Deleting multiple versions of a
 * message only costs a recipient the same number of keystrokes as messages
 * (and rarely does a topic ovelap more than a half dozen lists). One can
 * already create customized mail filters that automatically detect and
 * discard multiple versions of the same message in one's incoming mail --
 * just as the listservers themselves have such filters to block multiple
 * versions of the same message posted to the same list. When these mail
 * filters are in general use, this problem will vanish (except for the
 * extra traffic created by sending the multiple messages -- although even
 * this could in principle be handled by intelligent centralized
 * routers).
 *
 * My own provisional policy is to favor reaching the nonoverlapping
 * constituency at the expense of the few extra keystrokes for the
 * overlapping segment, yet I don't wish to be antisocial. People who very
 * much MIND having to perform the extra keystrokes tend to be more vocal
 * than those who don't, so one tends to hear only from them. What weight
 * should be given to their (legitimate) complaint? It seems to me that
 * this depends on numbers: How many object, relative to those who do not?
 * What is the relative size of the overlapping and non-overlapping
 * portions of the lists? How relevant and important is the particular
 * topic to each of the lists? How frequently does this happen?
 *
 * Obviously polls cannot be taken on each and every occasion, as these
 * would cause more keystrokes than they cured. But the problem is
 * certainly worthy of discussion.
 *
 * Stevan Harnad
 *
 *
As one who gets frequent cross-posting, I agree with your reasoning that
deleting the dups takes very little effort and, while I frequently frown at
the 2nd or 3rd posting, I really don't mind the tiny extra effort.  So far as
I'm concerned just keep the information flowing.

Carol Schaafsma
Serials Department
University of Hawaii Library