request for advice

[Leroy Quet]

I have never received an email from Neil saying I should stop sending in 
sequences, but I cannot help but identify a bit with the complained-about 
submitter at least a little bit, since I send in sometimes more than a 
couple of sequences in one day.
(I do try to make each of my sequences at least a little interesting, 
even if they are just a product of my sequence-making hobby.)

Given that there is almost unanimous condemnation in this email group for 
the complained-about submitter and unanimous support for Neil being 
strict with the person, I thought I should email the group with a little 
support for the opposing viewpoint, if just to provide some balance.

I think that the database SHOULD have standards, but...
First, isn't computer memory relatively cheap these days? Who cares if 
the OEIS someday reaches several million sequences? (Even though the 
database's software will have to be updated before this happens so as to 
allow bigger A-numbers.)

Second, yes, I too hate those "primes of the form a*n+b" sequences. But 
whose to say that a dumb sequence may not be useful to someone someday? 
(I, for one, was pointed in the right mathematical direction recently by 
the sequence "GCD(4,n)", a sequence that seems dumb to me, but it did 
turn out to be useful.)

I have a suggestion for the OEIS (an idea inspired by a recent useless 
addition to Google groups), which may be a problem because it would 
probably require many person-hours to implement.
Have a rating associated with each sequence (say, 1 to 5).
Each rating would be assigned by OEIS staff, not by the sequences' 
authors.
(We now have the "dumb" and "nice" catagories, which is often assigned by 
sequence authors. But I, for one, never add the keyword "nice" to any of 
my sequences, however I feel about them, out of modesty.)
:)
Anyone doing a search could perhaps ask for sequences with a rating of at 
least, say, 3.

Oh, well,

thanks,
Leroy Quet