terryd@sgi.com wrote:
> Anyone else have a problem with this??? Shouldn't the list-owner be ASKED if
> they want to be included, and have the CHOICE? Why should they have to take
> 2 actions to remove their list from the darn thing at all? It shouldn't be
> included unless the list owner had Specifically Requested such an action!!!
I dunno, I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't mind that
archivists default to archiving my public lists, so long as they give
notice and a method of opting out.
It is, however, certainly politer to ask first. (To their credit, the
only people that asked first were the Pangaea/Reference.Com folks,
not counting that weirdness from Architext a while ago.)
I *like* archives and indices and search engines; they're a large
part of what makes the Internet so awesome. I'm friendly toward
archivers since they perform a service that I'm not (yet) able to do,
which is maintain high-quality searchable archives of my lists; and if
people want to read a list via a Web interface, or look up a message
in an archives maintained by a third party, heck, that reduces the
load on my system and network connection.
It's not all peaches and cream, but I don't see any reason to demonize
archivists in general.
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
