Previously I have had the idea that I want at least to skim most posts to understand the position of most participants. The number of posts on this list makes that totally impossible. It was necessary to regard it a different way, as a collective lively electronic newspaper, and just go for a few titles that catch your interest.
It is therefore different from a list where the subscribers slog it out and shape the list by their own involvement. This is a fast progressive publication with a lot of initial success conducted by the owner/anchor man.
Doug has done much to shape up the process by injecting many new threads started with a paragraph of two, quickly capable of being scanned, and responded to.
I suggest this is a significant factor in the success of the list in the way it is, and Doug should exempt himself from the table of contributors in an analysis of the frequency of posting. I suggest we all know this is his list, and we obviously support him using initiative in how he shapes it.
For others to edge down to below three a day, I suggest needs a conscious abandonment of any idea that by the number of their posts they can participate collectively in shaping the direction of the list. I imply no criticism of the quality of the posts of the frequent posters but the really strong point that comes out of Doug's analysis is that more than 60 different people contributed over 7 days.
Doug, I am not sure if I should have addressed you in the second person but like your post I was addressing the list as a whole. Anyway: that's my take on your interesting feedback.
Chris Burford