RE: Should we drop the digest?

["Curry, Rene" <Rene@SINECO.com>]

I'm fairly new to the list, but on the weekends I access the posts from
the Audifans website archives which seem to update continuously.  (Is
that a true statement?)  Couldn't this serve the same purpose as the
digest?  I would even send an E-mail from my alternative E-mail address
on the weekend and see it post almost immediately.  Just some thought
for discussion.
 
Rene Curry
Grosse Ile, MI
84 5KST 

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	quk@isham-research.demon.co.uk [SMTP:quk@isham-research.demon.co.uk]
>Sent:	Monday, May 03, 1999 3:00 PM
>To:	quattro@audifans.com
>Subject:	Should we drop the digest?
>
>I know that many people prefer a few digests to dozens or hundreds of
>messages, and I can easily conceive of situations where it's more
>appropriate.
>
>But - is the digest itself actually part of the problem?
>
>Many questions seem to receive two groups of answers - one or two
>immediate replys, and then perhaps two to four a day later, when many of
>us have already forgotten the issue.
>
>Is it possible that the phenomenon of digest readers seeing and
>answering questions up to a day after the whole issue is done and dusted
>is one of the most significant contributions to wasted bandwidth?
>
>Digest readers should _ALWAYS_ read to the end of the digest before
>answering a question within it.  How many times do they see an item,
>respond to it, and then find a perfectly adequate response contained in
>the same digest just a few messages further on?
>
>Quite apart from those who copy the whole 90KB digest into their
>responses ...
>
>--
> Phil Payne
> Phone: 0385 302803   Fax: 01536 723021
> (The contents of this post will _NOT_ appear in the UK Newsletter.)