On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Amy Stinson wrote: > > This is not a "social" problem. I have 6 years of archives. I run > my LISTSERV on a voluntary contribution basis. Many of my > subscribers WANT searchable archives, unfortunately only SOME of them > are willing to contribute. Perhaps "social" is a semantical distinction of no use here, but what exactly is a "contribution" to your list(s)? It seems to me that unless you actually read the content of the contribution, and evaluate it for its "worth", you'll just be inviting postings that are "contributions" but not particularly interesting --just so the poster can become eligible to "search" the archive. Are you prepared for either dull postings and/or to read and score each posting to vouch for its "value" in qualifying the person for access to the archives? (Alternatively, if you automate the process of assessing the state of a subscriber ("previous poster" or "not a poster") won't likely lend itself to automated content analysis so automation simply assures you'll get subscribers playing posting "tricks" just to get search privileges.) And, how will this novitiate to your list(s) _know_ whether their topic/hint/question (posting) is even necessary unless they are able to search the archive to see if the issue has already been beaten to death by others? And, what will your other subscribers think when they start receiving redundant and/or trivial postings? Making it difficult for the novice to learn about your list's value to them and others, by making searching a tedious process, seems counter-productive. But, to each his own poison. Peter > So I want to make the search function available to only > those that contribute. I don't mind if they manually go > through the archives.