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.