🚀 go-pugleaf

J. Porter Clark <jpc@suespammers.org> wrote:

> In alabama.jobs, which I moderate, I took a bunch of submissions from
> various agencies and grouped them together to make a per-agency
> summary.  If you get alabama.jobs, take a look at articles with these
> Subject lines:
> 
>   US-AL-Sylacauga The Bostic Group summary 4 Sep 2000
>   US-AL Maxwell-Marcus summary 4 Sep 2000
>   US-AL Careershop summary 1-2 Sep 2000

I took a look . . . not bad.

> 
> In each case, I stripped out most of the redundant site
> advertisements.  I posted each message under my own name.  All of the
> articles as submitted by the agencies had generic From addresses (like
> webmaster@careershop.com).
> 
> My question is:  Is this anything like what is acceptable to the
> jobspew cancelers?
> 
> I have two problems with this format:
> 
>   1. It is almost more trouble to me than it is worth.
>   2. Users can't scan Subject lines looking for what interests them.

They need a subject line giving an idea of how many postings are in the
digests. However, it was nice seeing all of the postings from a single
agency in one, text searchable file.

> 
> I can also see where the recruiters who submit these articles wouldn't
> like me stripping any of their ads out.  I am not too worried about
> this.

Redundant ads are useless. The only problem is a professional digest
might give someone fronting for a body-shop (i.e., temporary workers) a
more professional standing than they deserve.

Bob Wilson