Information Obesity 195
Roland Piquepaille writes "How many phone calls, emails, voicemails, memos or stories do you have to go through every day? Probably more than last year. And probably too much. This article from the Sydney Morning Herald looks at this problem of information overload and how to deal with it. Here is a quick and not well-known fact: Website content management author Gerry McGovern says that something like 70 per cent of most websites goes unread. Despite that, when putting content on the web, "rarely do we ask the question: is anybody interested in reading that?" Good point. Check this column for a summary if you don't have time -- and who has? -- to read the original article."
Obese?? (Score:1, Funny)
So, Slashdot users aren't alone? (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, what's not of interest to some people may be exactly what one individual is searching for. I know I've found obscure information only available on a page or two in all of Google, and I know people have come to my sites on some pretty strange search terms.
Re:So, Slashdot users aren't alone? (Score:2, Funny)
don't you mean, we're not the only ones not reading the articles?
Who Can Predict What is Useful to the Public? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's exactly the point I came on here to make. It is impossible for the private Webmaster (and probably commercial Webmasters) to know what information might be useful.
I have an eclectic mix of information on my personal Web site. I doubt very many people would be interested in everything I post, but my Web site offers information found nowhere else on the Web that I know is of interest to several people. Several people have expressed interest and appreciation in the copy of Bagster's "History of English Translations and Translators" that I have on my site, and others have said they have enjoyed my story about my Navy experiences. Maybe someone else would be interested in my college class (Advanced Lasers) report on dye lasers? But, what is most relevant to the question of posting only interesting information would probably be my autobiography, which necessarily contains arcane details of limited appeal.
In matters of research, it is impossible to predict what little bit of information might make all the difference to a single reader. As someone who does a fair amount of research, more information generally is better than less, provided that the information is organized for rapid searching. I rarely need an entire document (the longer, the less-likely), but I often need some brief bit of information that often is not included in any article.
Spambayes (Score:2, Funny)
Information overload? Spam outweighing your ham? Penis already long enough? Try Spambayes [slashdot.org] a doctor-recommended, safe and effective way to treat one symptom of too much information. Comes in Unix or Windows flavors (Outlook 2000 or XP).
Disclaimer: Spambayes is not an FDA-approved medication and is not a cure for impotence, hair-loss, depression, runny nose, or jungle fever. Pregnant women, men with hairy underarms and people in general who look like monkeys should not use.
Re:NO WARRANTY? (Score:2)
That's the spirit:
If they can't appreciate subtlety, bash 'em on the heads with it!
RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
In that vein, though, I think that the number of times you have to say RTFA here demonstrates just how much people filter when they're immersed in this much information. I know it definitely applies to me.
Re:RTFA? (Score:2, Funny)
Then again, why am I replying to this?
Re:RTFA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, most blogs like that are written for friends of the blogger. I mean, that is why I write in mine. Not because I think anyone else out there actually cares about every little aspect of my life. About four of my close friends know of my blog and they all have blogs too.
Also, there is the aspect of venting when you are frustrated. Believe it or not, writing relieves stress for some people. It's nice being able to not carry a journal around and just be able
Re:RTFA? (Score:2, Insightful)
It strikes me that 'blogs are great for two purposes: fandom and family.
Re:RTFA? (Score:2)
Really if you don't want as much information turn something off. Leave you phone, PDA, and laptop at home. Take your significant others, kids, or a friend and just go hang out and experience reality. It's all a choice to be connected or not.
Re:RTFA? (Score:2)
Re:RTFA? Why? (Score:2)
The New York Times does not present its readers with information overload. You do not have to finish something to figure out you don't want to start reading it. Ever notice how a reporter's story always seems to fit the allocated space? It doesn't, really. Only what fits sees print. The remainder is just left out. The readers will read until they have read enoug
HEY! I'm not fat! (Score:1)
HEY! I'm not obese, I'm just big vocabularied.
</cartman>
RTFA? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RTFA? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RTFA? (Score:2)
Re:RTFA? (Score:2)
Who would have though (Score:5, Funny)
Thats right. Blogs = shit (Score:5, Insightful)
blogs != crap
While I agree that most of the "blogs" out there are of little or no use - some are important to a small group of people. I have a blog, and my family and close friends read and post to it. Will it ever be
Don't be so quick to judge.
Re:Thats right. Blogs = shit (Score:2)
Goblin
Re:Thats right. Blogs = shit (Score:2)
>blogs != crap
Can you give a counter example then?
Just kidding..
information overload (Score:3, Insightful)
The article wasn't really clear on this -- are we supposed to believe EACH employee is getting that much crap to deal with and respond to? Or, if that's spread out amongs the "100 to 499 staff", then it doesn't sound like much at all...
Re:information overload (Score:2)
are we supposed to believe EACH employee is getting that much crap to deal with and respond to?
That sounds like the crap a personal assistant has to deal with. I know that if I were to do all that, I'd never write any code.
Re:information overload (Score:4, Funny)
Of the 46 phone calls, 45 of them are personal.
Of the 25 emails, 24 of them are FW: FW: FW chains from friends that don't know any better.
Of the 16 voicemails, 15 of them are from the wife trying to find out whether you'd like steak or fish for dinner.
Of the 23 items of post, 22 of them are renewal notices for "Free" copies of InfoWorld or some such sludge.
Of the eight inter-office memos, 7 of them are from the "CEO to all employees" type, telling you to save money by not using so many staples.
16 faxes? Who still uses fax?
9 mobile calls? It's your girl on the side letting you know that the EPT just tested pink.
-jerdenn
70%? (Score:1)
Re:70%? (Score:4, Funny)
Oxymorondot (Score:4, Funny)
when putting content on the web, "rarely do we ask the question: is anybody interested in reading that?"
Is anybody really intersted in this?
Bzzt (Score:1)
Does that 70%.... (Score:1)
It's like someone yelling to me "hey, it's loud in here." Just because they're too old. Feh.
only 70%? (Score:1)
hello (Score:5, Funny)
if you are reading this, then you have entered the ironic realm of self-referential commentary
Re:hello (Score:2)
Re:hello (Score:3, Funny)
your lamp is getting dim.
Re:hello (Score:2)
Re:hello (Score:2)
I can just see a bunch of liberal treehuggers gathered about hunting things and then letting them free...
Much less voicemail/email (Score:5, Insightful)
M@
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
And something like 65% of all statistics are made up? To say 70% of most websites is a very broad statement and really needs narrowing of scope. And does he state anywhere how he came up with this figure? Any journal articles, documents outlining his research, etc?
Looking at the massive amount of blogs, personal sites, and other sites that hold little interest to those outside a set few, what about the percentage of websites that are read at all?
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. I have an http server on the internet that I use for my own purposes--development testing, links on my own home page, etc.--and I don't tell anyone else about it. It doesn't even have a registered domain name. But from time to time someone browses through a few pages.
I think all web pages are read by somebody, even if they are generally worthless.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Yeah, usually "../../../../../../winnt/registry.dat"
Why is it they never even request the front page with "You have just setup an apache server" on it?
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
And something like 65% of all statistics are made up? To say 70% of most websites is a very broad statement and really needs narrowing of scope. And does he state anywhere how he came up with this figure? Any journal articles, documents outlining his research, etc?"
From what I have heard and Read online and from people who work for ISPs something around 60 percent of the internet traffic is
Worse to come if people don't get it. (Score:2)
Stuff that's put up by an individual is read and useful by definition. At work, I share my information as well as the company will let me. Even if no one else is interested in the details of what I'm doing, I am and want to have them wh
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Consider the vast number of archives online, mostly unread. For instance, I have my weblog posts going back to 2000. I probably use them more then anybody else (due to the nature of the weblog and a project I'm doing) and I still don't use that much.
If you're talking about read reasonably "often", then the vast majority of jerf.org is unread.
However, it was all read at some point, so it depends on the exact definition. If you're talking
Information at your fingertips is good (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't read every last word in my morning paper and I certainly don't watch everything on TV.
But I do appreciate having the choice of being able to read what I want in my paper, or watching TV when I want. Similarly, I do appreciate being able to go to a website and pull information that's useful to me, when it's useful to me, regardless of how often it's been accessed in the past.
For example, I recently was putting an older hard disk drive in a PC, simply to see if it still worked reliably. If it did then I was going to keep it around for emergencies or perhaps donate it to someone else, if it didn't then I was going to recycle it.
Unfortunately, this drive didn't have its master/slave jumper settings, or even acceptable CHS (cylinder, heads and sectors) values on it, and the accompanying documentation had long since disappeared.
All I had to do to get the information that I needed was drill down to the relevant page of the manufacturer's website and, voila, I had the drive up and running within minutes.
Now, I can't imagine that there are many people who've looked at the same web page in the last year or two (after all, this was "only" a 540MB hard disk drive), but having that web page there where the information could easily be found made sense both for the manufacturer and for me.
The manufacturer spent next to nothing putting that information there where it could be found (and no doubt saved a lot of money that it would otherwise have spent on technical support calls) and I got what I wanted too, almost instantaneously. A win-win situation all around.
Now, why would the manufacturer care about how often the page has been accessed? It it somehow hurting it's bottom line to have that page sitting on a server somewhere? I don't think so.
Much as I loathe the phrase "information wants to be free", sometimes it does.
Re:Information at your fingertips is good (Score:4, Interesting)
For instance, I get mail from a cow-orker who loves to send us a lot of junk mail. Problem is, I can't just write a write a filter or auto delete. One day, he's gonna ask me something, then report to my manager how I'm ignoring him.
I've also had some weird inverse. Currently, I gotta write a status report every day of what I do. I'm a programmer. I get projects that last me weeks at a time. Writing, "I wrote a function" is kinda.. lame.
So as much as information wants to be free, sometimes, it should just have a nice warm cup of "shut the hell up".
auto reply and web page for you. (Score:2)
Try asking them not to send you that stuff. If that does not work. Get four co-workers to auto reply "that's funny". They will quit when they get's 4 times as much mail as he puts out. It's an easy way to make the point.
Currently, I gotta write a status report every day o
Re:Information at your fingertips is good (Score:2)
Re:Information at your fingertips is good (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to be first in my thoughts when I consider an upgrade? Keep all your old FAQs, KB, and support files online forever. When you show me that you care about your past customers, you're far more likely to gain me as a future customer, and better yet, as a loyal *repeat* customer.
[rant] This is why it grinds me that M$ *does* delete old support pages (no doubt to "encourage" upgrades). Whole classes of information have already gone away. -- I got notice of a major knowledge base killing spree as of last January, and consequently one of my machines spent two weeks leeched to a friend's cable modem, pulling the entire KB before the deadline. -- How much data was it? Including all the patches and utils, not quite 6 gigs (about 140,000 files in all). Six bucks worth of disk space for IDE, and maybe $60 worth for SCSI, but either way a drop in M$'s bucket. [/rant]
Re:Information at your fingertips is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Date it.
If it's known to be wrong, just place a dated notice, or better a (dated) link to the superceding page.
Of course you can keep the URL and update the content.
If you think about it, deleting stuff cannot give any real assistance in keeping track of which information is still correct.
Re:Information at your fingertips is good (Score:2)
Hey, lets delete all history pages -- after all, they're old, so they must be incorrect.
Re:Information at your fingertips is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Not (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, it's hard to know what websites are going to "take off". Did the guys at homestarrunner.com expect the kind of response they got? Not initially, that's for sure.
Second, not every website is MEANT for lots of activity. I have a homepage, and it's meant for small traffic from people I know. It's probably low traffic enough to be counted as one of those sites that goes "unread", but it serves the purpose that I intended it for.
There's no denying that the web has plenty of bad abuses of HTML. (Many of which would be erased if Geocities and other sites would just clean out their inactive accounts). But it's not hard to avoid such sites and move on.
Re:Not (Score:3, Insightful)
Very true. Frex, my own plethora of sites: the main site is my major advertising method, has been linked far and wide, and gets around 30k visitors a year (that's tons for the topic). It has info useful to its typical visitor.
My various subsites (which get traffic from 10k/yr down to none) exist as much to amuse myself and a few friends as for any other purpose. If anyone else reads 'em, cool; if not, I'd do 'em anyway. If they're useless, well, you're
Useless Gadets (Score:3, Offtopic)
As one who cannot afford all the new masturbatory gadgets that come out, I often wonder how much they actually contribute to productivity, rather than further encumbering their users.
Useful Gadgets (Score:3, Funny)
different people, different needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Your average internet user doesn't read slashdot, and doesn't care about slashdot news material. But that doesn't mean that
The same goes for just about any website. I don't need to read a website describing someone's two week ordeal that it took to get a salt-water fishtank in proper condition. I don't have fish, I might never have fish, but if I ever needed anecdotal advice it would now be there for the consideration.
The Internet is such a beautiful thing because of its high availability of information. As such, of course not all of it will be relavant to all people at all times. Frankly, I'm surprised the percentage is that low. I'd estimate that I view about one to two percent of web content at most.
Re:different people, different needs (Score:2)
Do you realize how many web pages and how much content 2% of the web is? There is no way you read 2% of the web.
Full text of article (kinda), in case of /.ing (Score:2, Redundant)
Spinning around
By David Adams
May 20 2003
Next
Another day in the office, which, according to one recent study, consists of handling 46 phone calls, 25 emails, 16 voicemails, 23 items of post, eight inter-office memos, 16 faxes and nine mobile phone calls. While that sounds scary, its even more alarming to think that those figures - taken from a 2000 survey of compani
Re:Full text of article (kinda), in case of /.ing (Score:4, Funny)
Information obese? (Score:5, Funny)
I knew I should have spent more time exercising and less time reading newspapers.
who gives a fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just having the information out there for someone to search and make use of is a benifit. Unless some harm can come from it, It should be online for someone who might need it to find it.
Re:who gives a fuck? (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is, maybe it is better for me to make the choice _before_ I become engrossed in the information that is
Re:who gives a fuck? (Score:2)
Reminds me of Powerpoint (Score:4, Insightful)
A good example would be to ask how many people read the text anywhere on slashdo tbut main articles. I know I ignore everything else including the text to the right and left sides of the main screen.
Re:Reminds me of Powerpoint (Score:2)
However, a presentation DOES need t
Re:Reminds me of Powerpoint (Score:2)
By the way, did I ever mention how much slashdot's lameness filter blows? It really, really, really sucks. I hate it. Very much so. More characters per line please. Blah blah blah. Goddamnit, the solution is moderation, not pitiful attempts at automated filtering. How many fucking characters do I need in a line? Brevity is the soul of wit. Most people don'
Reminds me of a quote.. (Score:2)
The problem is, he doesn't know what worked and what doesn't. While most of the information is never looked at, you don't know who it will benefit when. Since space is almost free these days - it's the bandwidth that matters - just leave the information online.
Why websites do not get read (Score:3, Insightful)
The pages are poorly organized or poorly laid out.
The navigation is terrible.
And the big issue:
The person cannot spell, has no idea what grammar means, and resorts to using four-letter words over and over.
Honestly, basic writing skills go a long way. I want to read something written by someone who has a brain. If they cannot even run spell check on their article, why should I care to read it?
Another thing to remember is that some websites are niches. I do not know how many sites I have run across that are fan sites for old television shows. For some reason a question comes up about the show and I go looking through Google for information. Those small fan sites can be awesome resources - when you have that particular need. I have seen counters in the double digits on sites that were virtual shrines to a children's show.
Ditto with information on other little things, like short stories by a certain writer. I do not need the information constantly, nor is there a lot for me to talk about Joseph Payne Brennan, but I wanted to find out about compilations of his work. A quick search turned up the names of his books. This is certain to work for writers many times more obscure.
Re:Why websites do not get read (Score:2)
This guy thinks it's time for an (Score:4, Funny)
haha i kill me. Mod this down appropriately now.
There is more to the web than what he thinks... (Score:3, Interesting)
I for one put stuff on my webpage as reference for myself. I do put some small content there for other to read, and the logs do show that it does get read.
It's good to have all that information there. (Score:5, Interesting)
The information can still be Googled.
The fact that Google and other search engines index by content rather than by title, author, or whatever, means that when someone does go to look up a particular piece of information, if there's something relevant on your site, they'll find it there. If you think about it, this is the ultimate indexing system. Microsoft has been trying to make this work in Windows for nearly a decade (remember the abomination called 'Find Fast' - not to mention their latest attempt, WinFS?) and failing miserably. Google handles it with all manner of grace and speed.
So go ahead, put up that content. Put up as much content as you like. Someday, it's going to be just the thing somebody needs to read, and when they need it, they'll find it on your site.
Re:It's good to have all that information there. (Score:2)
Take /. for example (Score:2)
I do that because I know my way around the site. Some sites have a much cleaner design, mostly Blogs(Memepool [memepool.com] for example), in which case I read like 98% of the page. Obviously this statistic varies.
Some good advice... (Score:3, Insightful)
"The question you need to continue to ask yourself while writing anything is, 'Why should anyone care about what I'm writing.'"
When I bother to ask myself that question, I generally avoid the embarassment of writing pointless drivel, either here or on the various sites I've put up. Haven't always kept it in mind, but last I checked I was still human, so that's not surprising.
Duh. Slashdot. (Score:5, Interesting)
if only people would check to see if someone had already posted the same thing, stay on topic, not flame, and once again ask 'does anyone want to read this'?
I my self am breaking a few of those rules right now. I know this same comment has already been posted, and I know most of you don't care about it, AND... my bet is it doesn't break 3.
This was always true... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Producing good quality material takes time and patience.
- People have always cranked out "information' that really isn't. The forms may have become different (e.g. powerpoint slides with spiffy animations) but the real substance is more often lost.
+ Couple this with an uncontrolled profit motives and the situation is even more appalling (as an example, just recall how many "technical" presentations are just sales pitches in disguise).
- The abuse is much more rampant today as the good stuff is increasingly drowned out by the ever rising noise level.
enough said
70% is not bad (Score:3, Interesting)
The articles themselves are info overload. (Score:3, Insightful)
no... (Score:2, Funny)
The rise of the met-site (Score:5, Interesting)
Google News [google.com]
Game Rankings [gamerankings.com]
GameTab [gametab.com]
I think sites like these are the future of info dissemination. I don't have the time to check out the separate game review and movie review watering holes. I have my local paper bookmarked, and BBC News, but all other news comes from Google. So on down the list. These meta-sites save a buttload of time and research.
When I do my online shopping, I always look for customer ratings. Now, I don't have to. Instead of the opinions of fifty average joes, I have the opinions of fifty paid professionals. Now, before you come at me and say that those reviewers might be paid to say something good, I can say from experience that bought opinions aren't as prevalent as you think and least come without a slew of spelling and grammar mistakes.
It's the wave of the future, like it or not. ve3d.com is fast becoming the unofficial hub of gaming news, despite the fact that you could fit its in-house content in a thimble and their admins' lack of journalistic ability is exposed on a daily basis.
And honestly, how many of you have /. as your primary info source? It's great, don't get me wrong, but it's another example of a meta-site...one where many people don't even take the time to RTFA. Content is not king once you realize the threshold of human consumption. You just end up bowling people over with sound and fury.
I don't have a cell phone, pager, or use IM, but I'm still overloaded by email. I have my primary email, my site registration email, my new primary since the old primary's shot through with spam, my work email, a website email, an alias for that website email...Then there are stock tickers, weather reports, sports scores, online banking...
I think, however, that the worst element is spam. Not just unsolicited email, but telemarketing calls, junk mail, door-to-door, etc. Then there are TV commercials, radio commercials, print media commercials. It's advertising that kills. Something like 80% of all email in the US is unsolicited. How many dinners have you completed without a sales call? How many days have you gone without another credit card in the mail? Yadda, yadda, yadda, and I wonder how many even read this far.
Death by Email (Score:2, Insightful)
Highest number of emails sent in one day: 14 May 2003, 26 emails
Highest number of emails received in one day: 10 Jan 2003, 80 emails
Average number of emails sent daily: 4.75 emails
Average number of emails received daily: 15.2
Total number of emails sent (to date): 1747
Total number of emails received (to date): 11355
Ratio of received to sent emails: 6.5 (ie. 1 email is sent for every 6.5 emails received)
The above numbers a
The answer to your question, (Score:3)
Yes. Big Brother is very interested in consuming all of this information.
Check this column for a summary if you don't have time -- and who has?
Big Brother has the time, the skills, the manpower and the hardware.
Google for Echelon, Carnivore, Patriot Act I & II,
etc... There are hundreds of articles in yro.slashdot.org covering these issues.
Keep the email flowing, it keeps Big Brother busy.....
That 70% Applied to Slashdot (Score:2)
Planning and Utility (Score:3, Interesting)
Something about this article really set me off. Read if you're interested.
First off, the only way to solve the "too much crufty information" is to implement a central planning system of some sort. This doesn't have to be a "central committee" or anything like that. It can be as simple as marketing types deciding what's cool and what's not. Then you'd have to deny people the ability to put up (or at least have linked to) what you consider "uncool."
You'd have to do this to reduce the amount of cruft.
Of course, we've seen the success of these restrictive planning systems.
The funny thing is that the internet does this, after a fashion. Things that people aren't interested in are not linked to, and thus are far less likely to be found by search engines. If you wanted to eliminate cruft, you might just not pay attention to anything below a certain linking threshhold. It wouldn't be perfect, but it wouldn't be bad.
Also, a note about receiving crufty emails. Yes, it happens. People send you the strangest, most useless crap all the time. We have a situation where I work where two or three secrataries dominate my inbox by inundating it with "word tips," "lost and found notices," and seminar announcements. It makes up about 1/4 of my non-automated email every day. Can't delete it because important stuff is sometimes in there.
The problem is because the sender thinks that these things are important. Most likely, in her little microcosm, it is. If you ask a secretary the most important things about running an office, you'll probably get answers like "office supplies and appointments," or "maintaining a friendly atmosphere" (which they interpret to mean everyone helping everyone else).
Of course, she's not alone. All of us have different priorities for running the business. I think that keeping the main fileserver and code repository running is a big thing. Surprise, surprise, that's my main job.
I think the solution to many of these problems is not to filter the emails (though that certainly helps), nor is it to disallow the emails. I think the best solution is to provide an appropriate forum. A private usenet server is an excellent place to post seminar announcements. A web page or wiki is a great place to have end-users help end-users. Might also be a good spot to have that lost-and-found list.
We've put up a wiki, and I'm introducing people to it, especially the serious email bombers (or maybe they're strafers?). We'll see how it works out.
Another problem, of course, is making all of these tools available and usable in the right way without the tools consuming all of your work time. I don't know the solution to this, but I do think that proper tools and proper integration are the future path of the information world.
Anyways, let me know what you think.
Just Johnny (Score:2)
Re:Just Johnny (Score:2)
hmm (Score:3, Funny)
Oh.. kind of like radio.slashdot.org
Websites have different purposes... (Score:2)
In fact, one of the best things about the web to me is the number of small, specialized sites that are basically labors of love offered by enthusiastic amateurs. No ads, no Flash, just otherwise hard to find information brought together in one place.
Another reason people have websites is simply to store their stuff somewhere - sort of an online archive that
Here's an idea (Score:2, Insightful)
As does 95% of Encyclopedia Britannica (Score:2)
Google currently claims to be indexing around 3 billion pages. So if 70 % goes unread thats still about 1 billion pages that get read on a regular basis. That's amazing!
The cost of publication on the internet is so low that it just makes sense to include everything including the kitchen sink. The key is good design heirarchy so that the esoteric stuff doesn't distract the casual reader.
Education to blame (Score:2, Insightful)
number of words in your essay. This has taught us to write a lot of bs because it seems that quantity is more important than quality. Teachers usually don't care if the information is relevant or not as long as it stays in subject and that you formulate proper sentences. There's our influence!
Mod this up (Score:2)
RTFA indeed (Score:2)
*Better* researching indeed. Given multiple pages of results on Google (or another engine), I'd far rather submit a finer grained search than read every result. In fact, I rarely read past the first 5 entries of a search, but yet I don't often miss critical data.
Don't forget the learning experience! (Score:2)
Even if someone writes a page nobody reads, who's to say the learning experience of building it wasn't useful or important? Besides, they're not carved in stone. If the author realizes his/her site isn't gettin
That's why it's the Greek Oracle (Score:2, Insightful)
There is literally no question that I can't Google an answer for within ten minutes. It really is the sum collection of all human knowledge and the idea of periodically "cleaning it up" is simply ridiculous.
Use Filters/rules! (Score:2)
As for my own email, I have over 100 filters that sort out email lists, friends, humor, spam, etc. Even after being on vacation for 10 days, I was able
I read 30% of that article and wondered... (Score:2)
Does 25 emails a day sound "scary" to anyone? Sure those 46 phone calls are kind of off-putting (and I get 16 faxes a month, maybe), but this doesn't really sound that overloaded to me. I guess Aussies are just "barmy"...