On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Philo wrote:
> You know, I've wondered about this. I'm on one list that has a five-line
> footer with addresses and a URL. Do the same people that put these footers
> flame users for overlong .sig's? Isn't the concept the same? (Except that
> the footer goes to WAY more people than any .sig)
 
I tend to agree with you, which is why I've never worried about trying to
attach such things to the list postings.  Cutesy sigs, used consistently,
are irritants.  First couple of times you see it it's maybe cute or
clever, but it becomes wearisome quickly (and just as wearisome are those
which insist on giving every possible email, snailmail, voice phone, fax
phone, voice-mail phone, etc. and put it all in sequential lines).
 
Same thing with top and bottom banners on list postings.  The first few
times, "Hey, that's neat, they give us all that info right here!" But
after you've seen it a few hundred times, and it increases the length of
each posting, it's a nuisance.  The ones who will pay attention and learn
how to do things on their own will do so without the banners, and will be
irritated by them.  The ones who do not pay attention, do not learn
despite being bombarded, will be equally irritated. They don't want to be
bothered with that stuff since their friendly local listowner will take
care of it for them.
 
While some people seem to like them, I see the banners as lose/lose
propositions.
 
       Douglas Winship   Hays County, Texas  [log in to unmask]
                    Secondary AUTOCAT Listowner
                              MEDLAB-L