Hi John,
I agree with you, feedback without any other information is of less value than if the author's name, file details, etc. are also present. I was not arguing the name and dates point - just the feedback. IMO the author's name should be present in all views of the files, including the access from the UT's front page. Speaking for myself, the primary reason I post files to the UT is to help others and hopefully get a little recognition as a byproduct.

With regard to 2-10 a day - I'm turning green :-)

>Let me explaion my position:
>But I don't want to see feedback at the expense of the author name, date first uploaded, and date updated. That information is valuable to me. If that information is added back to the list, then feedback would be fine because you could put it into context.
>
>If I see a file I think will help me and there is lousy feedback, then how do I know that it's valid if i don't know how long the file has been around and, in some cases, who wrote it?
>
>To use the Amazon analogy that someone made (a valid one IMHO), user feedback is great but what good would it be without the author and publisher and price?
>
>I mean, there's a helluva difference between "Collected Essays" by Mark Twain and "Collected Essays" by Marilyn Manson, isn't there?
>
>And, btw, I get 2-10 emails a day of file feedback, so I am inundated to a degree :-)