On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Bill Gravelle <starbg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We’ve really hijacked the original conversation - one of my pet peeves I must admit (and I started it), my apologies to John.
It's OK. We've had far worse diversions than that on these lists, on
many occasions.
As far as my collaboration preferences:
I am so far still pretty old-school. I still use Usenet-style
interspersed quoting and response when I can. I still operate at
e-mail pace, primarily. I'm definitely not going to abandon
midrange.com, regardless of what happens with any other efforts. And
while I am somewhat worried about too much fragmentation, I'm also
trying to be careful not to dismiss any approach out of hand. My
intuition on what will work and what won't has been way off plenty of
times.
To address the point about chats being ephemeral and unsearchable: At
least for the specific case of Ryver, they purposely made chats
"promotable" to posts. And while Ryver may never be widely Googlable,
presumably you can use Ryver's search to find content that you
know/believe/hope to be on Ryver.
That is how midrange.com lists are normally searched anyway, isn't it?
Yes, you can find midrange.com content via Google, but in my
experience, if I'm specifically looking for midrange.com content, the
Google homepage usually hasn't worked the best for me.
John Y.
midrange.com
