Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    CDSWAP has kept this conference free of buy/sell discussions,
    leaving it mostly focused on equipment.  Recently, there seems to
    be more review topics.  I'd love to see more, but I suspect that
    others couldn't care less.
    
    Consequently, I cast my vote for CDREVIEWS (or CD_REVIEWS).
    PYRITE:: seems like the logical home.
    
    -- Ward

    
    Oh, Just great, now we have three Different Conferences to look
    at.  Can't you guys just use the NEXT UNSEEN (Since) key!
    
    The next thing you'll want to do is create a Conf. for good cd's,
    bad cd's, good shops, bad shops.........
    
    						.dave.

                Keywords would help here too.

    I also vote "NAY"!  If I had my druthers,  CDSWAP would be subsumed
    into this conference as well.  Ever since NOTES utilities became
    rampant,  the number of public notesfiles (conferences) on the E-Net
    has gotten out of control (in my opinion).  A conference devoted
    to King Richard II of England?  C'mon.  Couldn't this be covered
    by HISTORY or SHAKESPEARE?
    
    The more separate conferences there are on a topic, the more difficult
    it becomes to find information.  Besides,  there are extra burdens
    on the host systems, on the network, etc. for each conference.
    
    I think CDs is a reasonable scope for a conference, with keywords
    for REVIEW, BUY, SELL, SEEK, etc.  Besides, if I really wanted to
    sell a CD (although I can't imaging why)  I'd probably post the
    notice in all related conferences.
    
    -pd

    Re: .2, .3 .4:
    
    Having to since past stuff takes time and resources (computes,
    network throughput).  It gets worse the farther away you are from
    the conference.  For example, I'm in Seattle, and each conference
    that I'm not interested in can cost me a up to a minute of my time.
    Nothing's free, not even SINCE.
    
    I don't see how making a CDREVIEWS file makes it all the difficult
    to find information.  If you are looking for reviews of discs, you
    look in CDREVIEWS.  What's so hard about that?
    
    I don't understand the reference to King Richard II of England.
    Methinks thou art diveth off the deepe end of Hyperbole. 

             <<< TLE::PUBD$:[VAXNOTES]EASYNET_CONFERENCES.NOTE;1 >>>
                     -< EasyNet Conference Shopping List >-
================================================================================
Note 363.0*                    RICHARD THE THIRD                       5 replies
RDGFSJ::JULIAN                                        8 lines   3-MAR-1986 14:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is a new conference for those budding medieval historians
    out there who wish to enter the debate on the life and death of
    Good? King Richard the Third of England.
    
    
    		RDGFSJ::RICHARD_THE_THIRD
    
    

There are already reviews in this file.  EXIT26::MUSIC also contains
reviews.

    
    Agree that another file would be cumbersome - Geez a note on Richard
    the III ??? Wuz dat da guy wid da hump?? Or da one wid da Lion
    Hard ?? Keywords gotta be the answer...I like reviews and don't
    mind doing them, but not especially nuts about all the Tecchie stuff.
    Now all we gotta do is find someone with the time to make all the
    notes current and add the keywords, or is there a blanket way to
    do that ??? The help is pretty typical, I swear someone from IBM
    wrote it. 
    
    Re. -1 Think there's a place for reviews of same or like albums
    because of the technological difference in the sound. What I mean
    is, an album (lp) may sound great, but the transfer to Digital can
    (and does) brighten the sound so much as to make it tinny or
    unlistenable - i.e., Grateful Dead lp's. 
    
    				The Cruiser
    

    yes, I would like to see reviews, but rather than scatter them through
    the file with a keyword to find them, why not start a "reviews"
    topic, and enter them all as replies to the one topic, then those
    interested could set up a marker to find it easily.
             
    The advantage is that those who DON'T want to read reviews would
    only have to hit the 'NEXT UNSEEN' key once to skip all unread reviews.
    
    /. Ian .\

        Re: .10
        
        How about putting all of the technical stuff (about specific
        players and hardware) in one topic so that the people who
        are only interested in reviews can skip over all of it by
        hitting the `NEXT UNSEEN' key once?
        
        I am interested in both reviews and the technical stuff.
        The introductory note (1.1) allows both of these types of
        notes in this conference.  Lets not make one a `second class'
        topic.
        					B.J.

    re .11
    
    why not? one topic for each model of CD, or each specific technical
    topic people want to discuss. A recent comment about Magnavox CD
    players elicited a reponse to see n1, n2, n3, n4, n5,... as they
    were discussed in each place.
    
    A lot of the spaghetti structure of largish notes files like this
    one came about because we had neither titles on replies, nor keywords
    (or other searching mechanisms) on Notes tools prior to VAXnotes.
    
    Specifically having titles on replies makes it feasable to have
    a single topic called "reviews" (it would have been terrible before,
    without them). If people (and I'm as guilty as the next) only created
    a new topic when they wished to discuss something that hadn't been
    discussed before then conferences would be a lot easier to follow
    (I have even seen people justify rehashing a topic in a new topic,
    because "the old one has gone quiet and people don't read more than
    a few topics back", which a more disciplined approach would render
    absurd).
    
    My suggestion was not meant to be a creation of "second class topics",
    I see the use of keywords as connecting related (but different)
    topics, hence if notes discuss Magnavox xxxx and Sony nnnn, then
    each could have a keyword such as "equipment_review". 
    
    Perhaps a fairer statement of my suggestion would put all
    orchestral/classical reviews in one topic, all opera in one, pop
    in one, country and western in another and so on: then if I wanted
    to find all C&W reviews the index of all notes with the keyword
    "record_review" would give me a small set of notes to view, I could
    then choose the category I wanted and read (hopefully) a large number
    of responses in one place.
    
    At present if SHOW KEY gives you 50 or so notes to view you have
    to select them manually since the "shopping" keys (kp5 and kp2,
    with kp7) that work in DIRECTORY, don't work in SHOW KEY. Further
    after each review is read, you must repeat the SHOW KEY to find
    the number of the next one. You could of course write them down,
    but we live in a paperless environment right? (:-)). In any event
    SHO KEY only gives the number of the note, you have to read it to
    find out what it is about; a DIR would give you titles.
    
    It was this technical limitation of VAX notes that I had in mind
    in suggesting concentrating the notes, as well as the one I mentioned
    about reducing the number of key strokes to not read the reviews.
                                                           
    /. Ian .\
    

    Suppose that there are 20 replies are relating to a particular review?
    That would be better structured by putting the review in a base
    note, so the discussion of that review could be entered as replies.
    The keyword function should be enough to allow readers to look at
    only reviews, or only Magnavox mods, or whatever.
    
    Better yet, why not have up to 256 orthogonal dimensions of structure,
    so someone can reply to a reply to a reply ... to a reply to the
    base note, rather than simply replying to the base note?  What?
    256 not enough?  How about 65535?
    
    -pd