>> obscure. As you probably know, I too have written for Foxtalk, lately about the Condes Address Model. (Do you still remember our discussion in Heerhugowaard?) I have to say that the reactions were minimal, or even almost zero, and that's not really stimulating. Was the article bad? Do the readers not really read? How many readers are there really? Would the UT Mag have been a better platform?
>>
>
>I think you'll find that to be the case wherever you publish. I had two articles published (one in CoDe and one in FoxTalk) and didn't receive any feedback from anyone either. I've had both articles up on our website and the CoDe article has been viewed well over 2500 times. Both weren't "mainstream" topics, but I figured I'd at least get one or two e-mails about it.
>
>I've got a few downloads available on the same site that have been downloaded anywhere from 400 to 1000+ times. I've only received a couple of e-mails on any of them (usually someone asking me to modify it for them for free).
>
>I think it's people's nature to not give much feedback for this kind of stuff (I've talked to other people who have had the same experience). It's a little frustrating because it'd be nice to get >any< feedback ("Hey, this code is broken!", "This was helpful, thanks", "You suck" <g>). I'm not sure it even occurs to people to send a quick e-mail about it.
>
>I started to try to make a habit of sending some feedback when I read or use something interesting. The first "Thanks!" e-mail I sent was actually to Ed Rauh right before he passed away. I'm glad I got the chance.

Paul,
Thanks for these words. It's good to know that it's a mechanism that has not much to do with one's personal qualities. Perhaps a simple 'thanks' e-mail is a good reaction. But how about a scoring mechanism. In the case of Foxtalk there could be a webpage where readers might give remarks and scores to recent articles. This might be stimulating for potential writers.