Re: header suggestion

[Peter Milbury <pmilbur@eis.calstate.edu>]

Dear Colleagues,

   I agree with Jackie Keith about the use of TARGET--> on the subject
line to alert the reader of the contents being a question.  Let's use our
innovative, value-added device invented here on LM_NET:  TARGET--> HIT-->


  * * * Using the TARGET-> discussion process, a friendly reminder.

  TARGET-> is a four-step process:

  1.  The TARGET-> originator proposes the subject for answering/commenting.

  2.  Those interested in the subject send their responses to the
      _originator_ of the TARGET-> question. Please do NOT post the
      response to the group.

  3.  TARGET-> originator summarizes or collates the responses, and then,

  4.  Posts the summarized responses to the entire list, using the original
      TARGET-> Subject in the subject of their message.

  The TARGET-> approach is particularly effective when someone has a
specific question that needs a variety of suggestions, experiences,
practices or sources.  It is not _always_ appropriate.  The intent of
TARGET-> is to make LM_NET more valuable to its growing list of members.

  It appears that TARGET-> is working fairly well, but some people have
posted responses to the entire membership.  Let's do our best to try
TARGET-> as originally proposed, for awhile longer, and then we will make
a decision after a fair trial.

  Thank you for your support of this innovation in Internet discussions.

Peter Milbury, for LM_NET

  Our original message on TARGET-> is repeated below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

  Your LM_NET moderators are suggesting an additional way to focus our
discussions, and make them more valuable in the process.  This may seem a
bit more formal that is common on most lists, but it might serve us well
as we grow (we now have more than 1,700 people reading the list.)


  We recommend that members specifically TARGET-> their messages in the
subject line, and use a summarizing process for responses they receive.
(Note the subject line in this message.)

  That is, when someone wants information about a topic (e.g., online
catalogs), they would ask for people to respond to them directly, and
after a period of time, post a summary or compilation of responses.

  The originator of the TARGET-> question uses that term in the subject
line of the initial question that is posted to the entire list.

  For example,  "TARGET-> Choosing Online Catalogs - March 1993." would
appear in the subject line of the message.  In the body of the message
the person might say something like the following:

  "Hi, this is Mike Eisenberg.  I would like to TARGET-> "Choosing Online
Catalogs."  I'd like to find out how others on LM_NET are choosing their
Online Catalogs.  If people will respond to me, I'll compile your
responses and post this TARGET-> topic back to the entire LM_NET."

  Then, when enough responses are collected, the originator summarizes
or compiles the responses, and posts the TARGET topic summary for the
list so everyone on the list can read, _if_ they are interested.

  This is a terrific way to add value to the list.  And it will cut down
on some of the extra traffic.  It also still allows for stimulating
discussions about key issues.

  It will be easy for LM_NETTERS to know what the orginator is asking for
and what the entire list will get in return.  It will also be easy to find
topics of interest posted in the Gopher site.

  AND... we might also be able to break out as a separate common library
media Q/As - and set up as another AskERIC resource.

Mike Eisenberg and Peter Milbury
LM_NET Co-owners