Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > I can't imagine that there's not going to need to be a "catchall"
> > list for problems that don't fit into any of the subcategories.
> >
> > More generally, we already have most of the lists that you
> > suggest, and we already know that people frequently don't find the
> > most appropriate list for postings. I don't think getting rid of
> > -general would help that in the least. The way to cut down on
> > misposted traffic is to make the set of categories smaller and
> > simpler, not to redouble our efforts to persuade people to use the
> > same or even more categories.
>
> Well, redoubling our current efforts to direct people to more
> specific lists would accomplish nothing, since doubling zero leaves
> you with zero. The description of -general includes:
>
> | General discussion area for users. Apart from compile, acceptance
> | test, and bug problems, most new users will probably only be
> | interested in this mailing list
>
> Given that, the fact that -admin, -novice, -sql, and -performance
> collectively get as many posts as -general suggests that people are,
> in fact, making some effort to find a list which seems a good fit.
> Perhaps if the description of -general was changed to suggest it
> *was* a catch-all for posts which don't fit the other lists, things
> would improve.
FYI, I usually email new people privately that cross-posting a question
can cause the question to be ignored. They usually respond positively
and avoid it in the future.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com