> I disagree with a couple of your premises here.
> One (implied): that post count is the relevant metric, since
> reading is much more common than writing, and the reason that
> we want people to have their conversations here (rather than
> in private email to the people who are most likely to reply)
> is so that they're visible. Pretty much everyone writes lots
> of email every day, so it's pretty hard to support the position
> that using email for outbound communication is too onerous.
> The posting stats here most likely reflect the reading-tool
> preference for the people who post, rather than any inherent
> attribute of the tool as post mechanism.
You're correct that the statistics are skewed towards posters and
not readers here, but I would say, that without posters there is
nothing to read.
So alienating posters by taking away their preferred choice of
access to please readers will suit nobody, neither the posters
nor the readers.
>> which has a workflow which is worse for them than their current
>> method (otherwise they wouldn't have chosen it).
> We have a long trail of data, in the field of browsers, which
> indicates that people are often not aware of the availability of a
> superior choice, I think, and that once they try something (perhaps
> with the help of an expert to let them get it set up as they prefer)
> they often find that they prefer it substantially. Your reasoning
> here is broken, IMO.
That is a good case for educating people that browsers are not the
best available tool to read and participate in large m:n discussions.
Mail- and (especially) Newsreaders still serve a valuable purpose here.