[Outages-discussion] [outages] FB down?

[James Hess]

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay at west.net> wrote:
> On 4/24/10 1:21 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
[snip]
Posters seem to have used reasonable judgement about what outages they
post, as near as I can tell. To date,  there has not really been any
situation that would warrant a poster being questioned about the
relevance to the community of an outage@ posting,  was there....?

> If http://podunkdialupisp.com/~hilda/photos-of-my-cat.html is down, we
> probably don't need to hear about it.

Probably not.    But then again, hearing about a few meaningless
outages like that in a thread with a good subject line  (As long as
nobody replied with "Who cares??") would be much less of a disruption
to the effective and normal use of the outage@ mailing list  than
threadjacking  in the form of    off-topic  "Who Cares?" posting
within obviously legitimate outage threads.

Particularly since such threadjacking seems to be a repeat phenomena
with various respondants participating....    I mean,  there had
already been a very similar case regarding  Facebook in February.
Any poster who did basic due dilligence would see that _yes_, someone
cares.

Given all facts,   to  respond with  "Who cares?"   to  report of a
major outage   borders  on abusive.


Subject filters are easy,  it is trivial for list members to mute or
ignore posts with a particular subject.     But there is no automatic
method of filtering  thread hijackings   and the predictable
responses,   because the subject line does not identify them.

Whoever sent that "Who cares?"   message was  responsible (IMO) for a
stream of  predictable  replies occuring  that would have made it very
difficult to find any actual followup posts regarding the technical
details of the actual  [outage].

--
-J