2) Mandatory Opt-in lists will only work if you have filters in place that only allow "verified" addresses to get into your inbox.
The way my former employer does it, if someone is seen to have opted in for mailings, he or she is sent a single confirmation message and must click a link in that message to receive anything more. MAPS calls this "closed-loop subscription."
If successfully enforced, such a system could reduce the noise a bit.
So this will confirm that this email is valid for the 100s of other SPAMs letter they have in stock...
Speaking for my former employer, that link will indeed remove you from some lists. Customer support staff are expensive, and businesses relying on email are terrified of getting on MAPS, not to mention all the ISPs' private banlists. Significant numbers of complaints are viewed as serious problems.
Of course, some of those motivations may not apply to the fly-by-night isp-changing small operator.
The test to use is probably whether whoever's sending you the mail is trying to hang on to a single network location; this exposes them to MAPS.
Hmm. To me at least, "stories" implies the fantastic and fictional (things you don't want in your design), but "use cases" has straightforward meaning: cases in which something will be used.
I guess I may have overestimated how portable this impression is.:( I withdraw the point about "stories" - I'll call 'em whatever the boss calls 'em (even if it's "creative enablizers" or something. The company my aunt works at has "bungalows" instead of "departments," I kid you not.)
Most of the named techniques make sense in context, but their grouping under a single name encourages cultish thinking and counterproductive politics - things which will at best delay and at worst sink your project.
Sanction lazy reasoning like "unit testing is good because it's part of Extreme Programming" instead of "unit testing is good because it quickly reduces defects" at your company's peril.
The promotion of jargon like "stories" adds to the confusion. (The previous "use cases" is not only conventional but also compatible with normal English.)
Finally, some people like to divert the focus from their and the group's actual productivity by talking about "mindset." In my experience, such people are usually obstacles to getting anything done. We have one of these clowns at my current company - he's barely done a useful thing in the last eight months, but he's sure talked a lot about mindsets (not XP, but other preferences) and absorbed a bunch of our unwilling time.
To be clear: I take issue, not with any of these ideas (which are in fact useful), but with their assembly into a sacred cow with private language and a Capitalized Name.
Slashdot Mirror
2) Mandatory Opt-in lists will only work if you have filters in place that only allow "verified" addresses to get into your inbox.
The way my former employer does it, if someone is seen to have opted in for mailings, he or she is sent a single confirmation message and must click a link in that message to receive anything more. MAPS calls this "closed-loop subscription."
If successfully enforced, such a system could reduce the noise a bit.
So this will confirm that this email is valid for the 100s of other SPAMs letter they have in stock...
Speaking for my former employer, that link will indeed remove you from some lists. Customer support staff are expensive, and businesses relying on email are terrified of getting on MAPS, not to mention all the ISPs' private banlists. Significant numbers of complaints are viewed as serious problems.
Of course, some of those motivations may not apply to the fly-by-night isp-changing small operator.
The test to use is probably whether whoever's sending you the mail is trying to hang on to a single network location; this exposes them to MAPS.
Sure getting advertisements from JC Penney once a week is annoying. But JC Penney pays for their own mail servers and will let you unsubscribe.
So as long as some mail meets those conditions, you won't call it spam? Many would disagree...
Hmm. To me at least, "stories" implies the fantastic and fictional (things you don't want in your design), but "use cases" has straightforward meaning: cases in which something will be used.
I guess I may have overestimated how portable this impression is. :( I withdraw the point about "stories" - I'll call 'em whatever the boss calls 'em (even if it's "creative enablizers" or something. The company my aunt works at has "bungalows" instead of "departments," I kid you not.)
Most of the named techniques make sense in context, but their grouping under a single name encourages cultish thinking and counterproductive politics - things which will at best delay and at worst sink your project.
Sanction lazy reasoning like "unit testing is good because it's part of Extreme Programming" instead of "unit testing is good because it quickly reduces defects" at your company's peril.
The promotion of jargon like "stories" adds to the confusion. (The previous "use cases" is not only conventional but also compatible with normal English.)
Finally, some people like to divert the focus from their and the group's actual productivity by talking about "mindset." In my experience, such people are usually obstacles to getting anything done. We have one of these clowns at my current company - he's barely done a useful thing in the last eight months, but he's sure talked a lot about mindsets (not XP, but other preferences) and absorbed a bunch of our unwilling time.
To be clear: I take issue, not with any of these ideas (which are in fact useful), but with their assembly into a sacred cow with private language and a Capitalized Name.