- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:24:26 +0100
- To: Dimitris Kontokostas <jimkont@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, janowicz@ucsb.edu, Ali Khalili <ali1k@yahoo.com>, Axel Polleres <droxel@gmail.com>, Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, LOD List <public-lod@w3.org>
On 31/03/2016 09:15, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: > imho, what kind of emails are spam is something subjective and everyone on > these lists might have a different opinion. > However, for most people a spam is a spam, no matter how long, short, > well-written or structured the email is. > > Whatever we decide one thing that would definitely help it to make all > these emails easier to filter out (or in). > One way is to *require* specific keywords on the subject (e.g. [CFP]). That's a good shout, Dimitris. I'll investigate whether our smarts are smart enough to be able to block a CfP as spam *unless* it has [CfP] in the subject line., > > If all the major mailing lists have such common requirements, eventually > everyone will use these conventions and people can create more efficient > filters on their email clients. > > Cheers, > Dimitris > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > >> Thanks everyone for the replies so far and for the interesting discussion. >> >> In an ideal world, yes, we'd build a system that supported the CfP and >> included everything from venue to chairs to topics, to the PC and a special >> place for Sarven to keep all his PDFs (sic). Oh and it would publish the >> papers, link to the datasets, extract all the info and expose it as LD yada >> yada. >> >> And then... we'd have a load of spam saying "look, I uploaded my CfP to >> the master system." >> >> Seriously, a structured system for conference and workshop materials would >> be terrific and, yes, we should do it. I am embarrassed that dog food is >> entirely absent from my own workshop CfPs. Count W3C/ERCIM in for a project >> proposal to fix that. >> >> But, for now, my dichotomy is not false. Do you want CfPs on these lists >> or not? The survey results to date are pointing in a specific direction, >> which is very helpful. >> >> Thanks >> >> Phil. >> >> >> On 30/03/2016 20:31, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >> >>> A simple plain text email works just fine. >>>> >>> >>> Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right >>> now. >>> >>> Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words >>> would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this. >>> >>> Some common practices, like listing the whole PC >>> and the conference's excellent reputation are just not helpful. >>> And that is what, I believe, a mailing list should focus on: >>> conveying helpful information to readers. >>> >>> I think it's important to say this in the discussion, >>> because now it's presented as a false dichotomy: >>> either we want CfPs or not. >>> Maybe the more interesting question is: >>> how can we have better CfPs that are actually helpful? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ruben >>> >>> >> -- >> >> >> Phil Archer >> W3C Data Activity Lead >> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ >> >> http://philarcher.org >> +44 (0)7887 767755 >> @philarcher1 >> >> > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 08:24:48 UTC