Re: Statistics for comp.databases.oracle.server - WE 26/1/2003

"Howard J. Rogers" wrote:

> Mark Townsend wrote:
>
> >
> > Note that I've snipped the statistics that could be construed as negative.
> >
>
> Which I think is a mistake, particularly the top 10 crossposters one.
> They might be doing it with tongue in cheek, but nevertheless they are
> doing it: some of those on the bottom of the OCR list have begun
> snipping more aggressively than in the past. And I'm sure I'm not alone
> in checking more thoroughly that I'm not just replying to a cross-post
> because I don't want to be listed as a cross-poster. Two behaviours
> which it can only be good to encourage.
>
> I'd vote for re-instating those particular statistics.
>
> Regards
> HJR
I agree with Howard. The truth is the truth. And we can use it to adjust our postings to IIIIIINNNNNCCCCRRRREEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE bandwidth or rstrn r-slvs.

Definitely interested in the cross-post numbers as they are a constant reminder to pair down those lists and not let a bad thing continue.

Thanks.

Daniel Morgan Received on Sun Jan 26 2003 - 17:45:07 CST