| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Relevancy of posts |
| Posted by: | Ulic |
| Date/Time: | 08/11/2002 00:30:39 |
|
Thank you for your reply, Michael. I acknowledge your criteria for relevance. Is it possible to have a relevant yet low quality post? If so, would anyone like to take a shot at defining sensory-based criteria regarding "quality?" Another way of asking this question would be "how would you know that a post is of poor quality?" - Ulic |
| Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
| Relevancy of posts | 05/11/2002 03:13:01 | Web Master |
| Re:Relevancy of posts | 06/11/2002 19:19:17 | ulic |
| Re:Re:Relevancy of posts | 06/11/2002 21:39:15 | Michael Carroll |
| Re:Re:Re:Relevancy of posts | 08/11/2002 00:30:39 | Ulic |
| Re:Re:ReRe:Re:Relevancy of posts | 08/11/2002 01:01:46 | SNL |
| Re:Re:Re:ReRe:Re:Relevancy of posts | 08/11/2002 01:56:44 | Ulic |
| Re:Relevancy of posts | 06/11/2002 19:41:22 | Dimitry |
| Re:Relevancy of posts | 08/11/2002 02:05:32 | Joseph Stalin |
| Re:Re:Relevancy of posts | 09/11/2002 03:18:08 | Ulic |
| Re:Re:Re:Relevancy of posts | 09/11/2002 03:43:16 | Joe |