For years, I've heard list subscribers (mainly newbies) complain that there isn't a clear set of guidelines for list behavior. I've been meaning, for years, to compile one, and I finally broke down and did so - after explaining for the umpteenth time why a subscriber needs to post in Plain Text. I'd appreciate (constructive) criticism on how to better this set of guidelines, including topics that need to be added, based on your own knowledge and experience: http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html I'm especially hazy on exactly what happens when people "gang" address messages to multiple lists. I think I've deciphered what's going on correctly. There is someone who subscribes to two of the same "related" (and very busy) mailing list that I do. He's an active poster, and he habitually posts every message to both lists. I do so wish one or the other of the listadmins would tell him to STOP doing it. It really does create the problems I mention. Diana

Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > For years, I've heard list subscribers (mainly newbies) complain that > there isn't a clear set of guidelines for list behavior. I've been > meaning, for years, to compile one, and I finally broke down and did > so - after explaining for the umpteenth time why a subscriber needs to > post in Plain Text. I'd appreciate (constructive) criticism on how to > better this set of guidelines, including topics that need to be added, > based on your own knowledge and experience: > > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > I'm especially hazy on exactly what happens when people "gang" address > messages to multiple lists. I think I've deciphered what's going on > correctly. There is someone who subscribes to two of the same > "related" (and very busy) mailing list that I do. He's an active > poster, and he habitually posts every message to both lists. I do so > wish one or the other of the listadmins would tell him to STOP doing > it. It really does create the problems I mention. Hi. I can't say I've ever needed all that explanation for my subscribers, but if you do, it's a aretty good FAQ, all in all. But, in fact, in fact gets a bit repetitive? IMO, that is...and could be it's because the first few times the phrase appears ON SCREEN several places at once. The bit of the FAQ I'd use most often is the plain-text, because many subscribers haven't a clue whether they post in plain-text, html or gibberish. Other than that, I must have an especially quiet set of lists or an overly-well-behaved bumch of subscribers. (g) Cheryl

A thank you to those who've responded to me offlist. I've accepted pretty much all of your suggestions, and my FAQ list is definitely the better for it. One odd thing... There is one response to me that was onlist - I can see it in the archive - but I never received a copy, so I can't simply "Reply" to it. I do have a question about the response, so I'm going to copy and paste the message below. Obviously, it's not going to thread properly... > From: singhals <singhals@erols.com> > Subject: Re: [LO] mailing list FAQs > Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:05:17 -0500 <snip> > > Hi. > > I can't say I've ever needed all that explanation for my > subscribers, but if you do, it's a aretty good FAQ, all in > all. But, in fact, in fact gets a bit repetitive? IMO, that > is...and could be it's because the first few times the > phrase appears ON SCREEN several places at once. > > The bit of the FAQ I'd use most often is the plain-text, > because many subscribers haven't a clue whether they post in > plain-text, html or gibberish. Other than that, I must have > an especially quiet set of lists or an overly-well-behaved > bumch of subscribers. (g) > > Cheryl This list of FAQs is everything I can think of, which is the accumulation of *twenty years* of questions. I've actually been working on the list, off and on, for some weeks - adding an FAQ each time one occurred to me. Despite how many FAQs there are, several more were suggested offlist. I've just added two more, and I have one more to do. The FAQs are likely somewhat repetitive in that each answer is meant to stand alone. It's not really intended that someone would sit down and read them all as a cohesive set of instructions. If so, I'd have given more thought to the order they are in. Right now, they're simply in the order I've thought of them. I do find myself using them singly, as opposed to directing them to the entire page. That is, if I have to tell someone to trim their backquotes, I just say, "Please see FAQ #21." That one and the plain text one (#4) are the two I seem to use the most. Gosh, it's saving me time and tedium not to have to retype these explanations... I have added a link to the FAQ page to my list Welcome message and to my list footer. So, I'm also relieved that, even if the subscribers don't bother to read them, none of them will ever again be able to say, with any justification, "How was I to know I wasn't supposed to do that?!" I'm responding to your message, in part, because I'm afraid I don't understand this phrase: "...and could be it's because the first few times the phrase appears ON SCREEN several places at once." Could you please explain? Diana