Repetitive messages (was Re: [wellylug] \"People\'s Choice Community Member of the Year\")

[Ewen McNeill]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512111402380.25298 at maverick.blakjak.net>, Mark Foster writes:
>I don't necessarily disagree with you, however please consider that in the 
>situation above you've defined the message as 'spam' because of the fact 
>it was repeated

At the risk of reviving the thread -- which fortunately seems to have a
happy conclusion -- way back in the beginning the reason "spam" was 
chosen as a term was because of a Monty Python scene where they all say
"spam" over and over, drowning out all other conversation.  The "volume"
of the spam (ie, how many messages were sent out) was very much part of
the original definition, as used for classification on Usenet.  (The
term has become somewhat more generalised since then.)

Personally I didn't have a problem with it being posted once.  It was
relevant to the group.  Even seeing it twice, once per list I read,
wasn't a big deal.  What I objected to was seeing virtually the same
message six times (three times on each list), with a pattern suggesting
this was going to be some sort of "daily countdown".

FWIW, I'd also be rather worried about seeing a repetitively weekly
"announcement" message of whatever latest "podcast" was available or
whatever.  If it's a podcast there's a RSS feed people can subscribe to
(it's pretty much the definition of podcast -- a RSS feed with audio
enclosures).  So an announcement once of the RSS feed ought to cover it;
those who are interested can subscribe (and yes I believe there are
several Linux/open source RSS aggregators supporting attachments).

In summary just because it's on topic doesn't mean that it's appropriate
to repetitively post it daily/weekly/whatever.  Perhaps we need to add
this to our monthly reminder post ("don't post (nearly) the same thing
lots of times").

Ewen