[Wolves] Archive via Google

[sparkes]

On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 18:38, Mo Awkati wrote:
> I think its useful to have our technical discussions
> avaliable for others to benefit from. 
this is why I believe they should stay.  How many times have you
searched google for an answer and you found the best answer in a mailing
list.  We might mess around a little and some of the banter between
friends might look a little strange to an outsider but we do answer a
hell of a lot of questions that others could benefit from.

> It is only right
> that we should inform new lug members of this. 
The site contains a link both to the sign up page and the mailing list
archieves.  Some lugs block their mails so only signed up members can
read them.  I personally don't see the point of this on such an open
list.  I do believe that not all lists should be archived becuase some
are of a more delicate nature and things are discussed that when taken
out of context could lead to legal proceedings ;-)  

> I don't
> have a problem with it myself but seeing the sort of
> discussions that took place on that "particular
> subject" that was dropped I think people need to be
> aware of things. It could also be a source of more 
> new members.
adding 'site:mailman.lug.org.uk' to an google search just searchs the
public archives of the lugs and you will get a lot of good answers on
this but as I said some lugs make it so only members can browse. 
Googlebot isn't a member ;-)

This caused me a problem today when posts replying to a reply of a post
of mine appeared on the SB lug list but I couldn't see the full reply
cos I can't remember my login?  I hunt around and find it but why spend
ten mins doing that when I could browse the archives of the Wolves lug
and better respond to that list with no effort.

Perhaps we need a vote on if we should block the archives from
non-subs?  This would limit it's helpfulness to none-members and
wouldn't really protect the members that much better (except Peter whose
googling is pretty rough at the moment, ou errr misses)

we have the option of blocking it.

I vote no.

> 
> Mo

sparkes