META Categorizing subjects?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: John H. Stevens, Jr.: "Knowledge, Luxury, and Identity (SYNTH) - not short"
• Previous message: John McCreery: "Work, Lives, and Research"

"Mr. E" <jackechs@EROLS.COM> suggests:
> Submissions have SUB in the subject. Critiques have CRIT. Filler
> is FILL. I'm sure you get the drift. I don't know if that would work here,
> but using a code for different inquiries might be a solution for you ...
> just delete the ones you don't want to read. That way the list doesnt' have
> to revert to censorship. Just a thought.

This seems to work well on lists where I've seen it used, and anthro-l
certainly has the volume to make such a scheme useful. (I no longer
have time to even skim everything on the list.) Rather than trying
to mandate it, how about those of us who think it's a good idea (and
who remember it when posting!) just start doing it? Here are some
suggestions for standard labels:

META for discussion about the lists purpose, lack of purpose,
operation,...

ADMIN for messages from the list owner

INTRO a post from someone new to the list, introducing themselves

SQUERY a *specific* query of any kind (ie "What was Levi-Strauss' fourth
book, and when was it published?", not "What do people think about
Levi-Strauss?") -- a question expecting personal answers rather than
group ones

QUERY more substantial queries (the usual start of DEBATE threads?)

LONG a long article -- a paper in progress

FOSS a post from Dan Foss

DEBATE part of an on-going debate about something

MISC (or don't bother with a tag)
everything else

.
.
.

Suggest other tags, or just use them!

Danny Yee.

• Next message: John H. Stevens, Jr.: "Knowledge, Luxury, and Identity (SYNTH) - not short"
• Previous message: John McCreery: "Work, Lives, and Research"