On Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:20:21 EDT Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> said:
>> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:33:00 EDT
>> Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
>> and Access" <[log in to unmask]>
>> From: Bill Drew -- Serials Librarian <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Is there any reason why the discussion of referreeing of ejournal must
>> be carried out on four different lists?
Four?
>Comments: To: Assoc El Sch Jnls <[log in to unmask]>,
> "Arachnet, EJ list" <[log in to unmask]>,
> cni list ej <[log in to unmask]>,
> Bitnet List Owners <lst*[log in to unmask]>,
> [log in to unmask], Pacls-l list <[log in to unmask]>,
> Lib Serials list <[log in to unmask]>,
> Pub-EJournals <[log in to unmask]>
That's EIGHT lists. Almost as much cross-posting as your average Kurdish
oppression article on usenet. And, speaking only for myself, about the
same value.
>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.
Granted. But if one is going to post, on a regular basis, to eight
different lists with a high potential for overlapping, and if furthermore
the articles may only have marginal relevance to some of the lists, one
clearly has a case for choosing one list for the discussion and inviting
people who are interested in this topic to join the list in question. If
all else fails, creating a new list takes about 15 minutes at most.
Eric
|