Re: I wish we could do away with the 5-star poll

In article <GQDUj.2607$NU2.1458@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Joetheone <joetheone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>I don't think that anybody that has done more than a casual scan of this 
>group would ever expect unanimity on any subject. But many of us find the

>poll and poll threads valuable, and there's nothing to stop anybody from 
>starting a thread on any particular subject or aspect of a particular
show, 
>and geting people to respond to them. 

Could you elaborate for me why you find the poll thread "valuable", in
the sense of "more valuable that individual threads with names would be"
particularly if there was still a poll post that said, "Poll votes can
go here (or perhaps to www://url).  If you want to discuss the episode
in any detail, many will find it more useful if you start a fresh thread
with a subject line describing what you want to discuss."

I'm not against having a poll, I like polls, though I personally find
that the web is a considerably better technology for them.   

With a post like the above, there would of course still be people who
decide to discuss the show within a generic thread, but it would be
reduced.  With a web poll (thus no follow-ups to the poll posting
other than the later posting of results) there would be less of this.

But I'm interested in the reasoning why grouped posting with a
non-informative subject is more valuable than regular posting.
Is it too much of a burden to type in new subject lines?   Is it
a sense that it is so much of a burden than those with something
interesting to say would just not write it at all?
-- 
How did "spam" E-mail get its name?
	http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html