SC - Flori-thingy-OT-OOP

[Catherine Deville]

Gwynydd said:
> << I do sometimes find the floriegium a bit frustrating when I have gone
is
> search of a specific recipe or whatever, but more usually, I find that I
get
> absorbed in reading what has been said. I come away much better informed
> than I would have done had all those messages not been there.

and Lord Ras replied
> I agree with you in principle but I see no need for headers or footers or
23
> messages that say the same thing. I understand what Lord Stefan is trying
to
> do and he knows that I support his efforts 100%. I just think that the
noise
> factor can be reduced to a significant degree resulting in the use of
less
> space and less time reading the files. Yes, I know how much time it would
> take but the resulting archives would be easier to use and much more
useful,
> IMO.

When someone is doing a volunteer work, especially one as time consuming as
collecting and cateloguing information, it is more productive to offer help
than to criticize the way in which the task is being done.

If Lord Stefan does not edit out headers and footers, then perhaps
volunteering to help him to edit that element would be productive?  If not,
then there may be a reason which *he* sees for leaving them intact.  For
myself, if I were editing something like the Floriegium, I would at the
very least want to leave the "from" information intact.

> Also after a subject has been discussed the error posts can be eliminated
> completely why keep a post that says that a blade of grass is green after
one
> that correctly identifies it as green is received later? Eliminate the
> garbage and Stefan's archives would be a boon to the world, IMO.
>
> What is the perfect archive? Thoughts? Mine have been submitted. :-)

Hmmm... as for the last... I, personally (if *I* were doing this job) would
agree with Lord Stefan and would see an editorial issue with editing out
the "garbage" as much of the information exchanged here is a matter of
opinion and I would want the archive to include those different opinions
and arguments including any information that the individuals used to
support their arguments.  Much of what is discussed here is open to debate,
and debate we do :-)  ... deleting one side of the debate because you
consider it "garbage" and consider the other side of the debate to be more
accurate/correct/valid/supported takes away the right of the researcher to
make their own decisions based on the arguments.  So, for the same reason
that I believe that it's best to track what a secondary source says back to
the primary source, in this case I would want to hear *all* the opinions
and weigh them myself therefore as an editor I would not want to deprive my
readers of them.

just my .025 cents.

I remain, in service to Meridies,
Lady Celia des L'archier