Does anyone else find it annoying when messages are posted to this
newsgroup with very long lines?
It makes them very difficult to read on some newsreaders. I think that
standard 'netiquette' used to be to limit lines to 70 or so lines. Has
that changed?
> Does anyone else find it annoying when messages are posted to this
> newsgroup with very long lines?
> It makes them very difficult to read on some newsreaders. I think that
> standard 'netiquette' used to be to limit lines to 70 or so lines. Has
> that changed?
No, but Google in its arrogance ignores almost all conventional netiquette.
Chris Gordon-Smith <use.addr...@my.homepage> wrote:
> It makes them very difficult to read on some newsreaders. I think that
> standard 'netiquette' used to be to limit lines to 70 or so lines. Has
> that changed?
> > Does anyone else find it annoying when messages are posted to this
> > newsgroup with very long lines?
> That isn't noticed with a decent newsclient.
A lot of newsreaders allow long lines to wraparound at the right hand
side of the window. I think its very questionable whether this is
'decent'. On a 19 inch screen it makes text very difficult to read.
There is a reason why 70 - 80 characters was chosen. It was not solely
to do with limitations of technology.
Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
> A lot of newsreaders allow long lines to wraparound at the right hand
> side of the window. I think its very questionable whether this is
> 'decent'.
It's the right thing to do. There is a reason why web browsers handle long paragraphs this way for some decades now.
> On a 19 inch screen it makes text very difficult to read.
I also use screens which are 19 inch and larger, and I don't have this problem.
> There is a reason why 70 - 80 characters was chosen. It was not solely
> to do with limitations of technology.
The reason for the arbitrary 70-ish column limit was only due to technology's limits at that time. Since then, decades have passed and those limits are long gone. In addition, it makes no sense to believe that the way a paragraph is presented in your client should be set by anyone but yourself.
You are free to use any usenet client that handles long lines well. For example, thunderbird doesn't have this problem, and neither does knode or pan.
Chris Gordon-Smith <use.addr...@my.homepage> wrote:
> A lot of newsreaders allow long lines to wraparound at the right hand
> side of the window. I think its very questionable whether this is
> 'decent'. On a 19 inch screen it makes text very difficult to read.
Your screen size only matters if you run your newsreader in full screen
mode.
> Chris Gordon-Smith <use.addr...@my.homepage> wrote:
> > A lot of newsreaders allow long lines to wraparound at the right hand
> > side of the window. I think its very questionable whether this is
> > 'decent'. On a 19 inch screen it makes text very difficult to read.
> Your screen size only matters if you run your newsreader in full screen
> mode.
> Tobi
So although many newsreaders are windows/GUI programs supporting full,
screen mode, there is a problem if they are actually used in full
screen mode and someone has posted a message without line breaks.
Hardly seems like progress to me.
I suppose posting long lines would be workable if newsreaders wrapped
around at 72 characters, but neither KNode nor Pan seem to do that.
Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
> So although many newsreaders are windows/GUI programs supporting full,
> screen mode, there is a problem if they are actually used in full
> screen mode and someone has posted a message without line breaks.
> Hardly seems like progress to me.
> I suppose posting long lines would be workable if newsreaders wrapped
> around at 72 characters, but neither KNode nor Pan seem to do that.
They wrap the user's posts, if the user tells them to.
If you are referring to the posts you download from a server then there is no point in wrapping those. If the width of your newsclient's window is too wide then you resize the window to better suit your tastes. With today's monitors, if you run a newsclient fully maximized, the 72-column text limit means that your newsclient, in spite of covering up the entire desktop, only displays text on a column about 1/4 to 1/3 of the screen's width.
Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> writes:
> Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
>> I suppose posting long lines would be workable if newsreaders wrapped
>> around at 72 characters, but neither KNode nor Pan seem to do that.
> They wrap the user's posts, if the user tells them to.
> If you are referring to the posts you download from a server then there is > no point in wrapping those. If the width of your newsclient's window is too > wide then you resize the window to better suit your tastes. With today's > monitors, if you run a newsclient fully maximized, the 72-column text limit > means that your newsclient, in spite of covering up the entire desktop, only > displays text on a column about 1/4 to 1/3 of the screen's width.
So you are saying that the user has to fiddle about with window sizes to
get readable text. Doesn't seem very ergonomic.
I have found a partial solution that I'm trying out. I've switched to
Gnus. It has a 'Washing' menu that includes a 'Fill long lines'
function. This at least seems to make the messages readable.
Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
> Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
>>> I suppose posting long lines would be workable if newsreaders wrapped
>>> around at 72 characters, but neither KNode nor Pan seem to do that.
>> They wrap the user's posts, if the user tells them to.
>> If you are referring to the posts you download from a server then there is
>> no point in wrapping those. If the width of your newsclient's window is too
>> wide then you resize the window to better suit your tastes. With today's
>> monitors, if you run a newsclient fully maximized, the 72-column text limit
>> means that your newsclient, in spite of covering up the entire desktop, only
>> displays text on a column about 1/4 to 1/3 of the screen's width.
> So you are saying that the user has to fiddle about with window sizes to
> get readable text. Doesn't seem very ergonomic.
It actually *is* ergonomic because what's a too long line for me (e.g. >60 characters) is not necessary what it is for you (e.g. >70) or some visual prodigy with a huge yellow spot that can span 132 characters. Your Web browser does same thing as your new reader (wraps at the size of the window); and after billions of dollars spent in the browser war I do not expect them to have such a major aspect of usability as how to select the text width totally wrong. Certainly it is developed better than it was for early USENET clients (which, for whatever it matters, ran in physical windows of fixed width (64, 80 characters etc). Thus IMHO the best of two worlds is to imitate such a physical window with a Windows or X "window" (frame?) on your much-higher-quality-than-in-old-good-days 19" monitor and use the so freed screen real estate as a special bonus.
> I have found a partial solution that I'm trying out. I've switched to
> Gnus. It has a 'Washing' menu that includes a 'Fill long lines'
> function. This at least seems to make the messages readable.
Pavel <pauldontspamt...@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> writes:
>> So you are saying that the user has to fiddle about with window sizes to
>> get readable text. Doesn't seem very ergonomic.
> It actually *is* ergonomic because what's a too long line for me
> (e.g. >60 characters) is not necessary what it is for you (e.g. >70)
> or some visual prodigy with a huge yellow spot that can span 132
> characters. Your Web browser does same thing as your new reader (wraps
> at the size of the window); and after billions of dollars spent in the
> browser war I do not expect them to have such a major aspect of
> usability as how to select the text width totally wrong. Certainly it
> is developed better than it was for early USENET clients (which, for
> whatever it matters, ran in physical windows of fixed width (64, 80
> characters etc). Thus IMHO the best of two worlds is to imitate such a
> physical window with a Windows or X "window" (frame?) on your
> much-higher-quality-than-in-old-good-days 19" monitor and use the so
> freed screen real estate as a special bonus.
That's OK for people who don't mind adjusting window size. It doesn't
work for people like me who like to keep things simple and always have a
single maximised window and Alt-Tab between windows.
I think that the heart of the problem here is that the use of extra long
lines means that we are trying to operate Usenet with two different
standards/conventions. The original that said limit lines to 70-ish
characters, and a new 'web oriented' one that doesn't limit lines.
Chris Gordon-Smith <use.addr...@my.homepage> writes:
> Pavel <pauldontspamt...@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> writes:
>>> So you are saying that the user has to fiddle about with window sizes to
>>> get readable text. > I think that the heart of the problem here is that the use of extra long
> lines means that we are trying to operate Usenet with two different
> standards/conventions. The original that said limit lines to 70-ish
> characters, and a new 'web oriented' one that doesn't limit lines.
Here is what the moderator on comp.lang.c++.moderated has to say about
it:
{ Please limit your text to fit within 80 columns, preferably around 70,
so that readers don't have to scroll horizontally to read each line.
This article has been reformatted manually by the moderator. -mod }
Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
> Here is what the moderator on comp.lang.c++.moderated has to say about
> it:
> { Please limit your text to fit within 80 columns, preferably around 70,
> so that readers don't have to scroll horizontally to read each line.
> This article has been reformatted manually by the moderator. -mod }
That's what moderators do: enforce arbitrary rules. There is a reason why comp.lanc.c++ tends to have more than 10 times the traffic that comp.lang.c++.moderated currently does.
>> Here is what the moderator on comp.lang.c++.moderated has to say about
>> it:
>> { Please limit your text to fit within 80 columns, preferably around 70,
>> so that readers don't have to scroll horizontally to read each line.
>> This article has been reformatted manually by the moderator. -mod }
> That's what moderators do: enforce arbitrary rules. There is a reason why
> comp.lanc.c++ tends to have more than 10 times the traffic that
> comp.lang.c++.moderated currently does.
Does it?
It did once upon a time, now the two are about equal (if you ignore the spam).
On Tue, 2012-10-09, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
>> Here is what the moderator on comp.lang.c++.moderated has to say about
>> it:
>> { Please limit your text to fit within 80 columns, preferably around 70,
>> so that readers don't have to scroll horizontally to read each line.
>> This article has been reformatted manually by the moderator. -mod }
> That's what moderators do: enforce arbitrary rules. There is a reason why > comp.lanc.c++ tends to have more than 10 times the traffic that > comp.lang.c++.moderated currently does.
Surely you don't believe this rule has any negative effect on the
traffic to c.l.c++.m? Especially since it's not enforced: the
moderator does the dirty work, and everyone else is happy.
/Jorgen
-- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> Surely you don't believe this rule has any negative effect on the
> traffic to c.l.c++.m? Especially since it's not enforced: the
> moderator does the dirty work, and everyone else is happy.
I referred to the enforcement of arbitrary rules. As I've said, the length of a line is perfectly irrelevant.
When given a choice, people naturally avoid being subjected to arbitrary rules. If everyone was, as you said, happy with it then we would never have ended up with two redundant newsgroups, and the unmoderated one wouldn't ended up being the popular one while the moderated one is in its deaths throes.
On 2012-10-10, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Does it?
>> It did once upon a time, now the two are about equal (if you ignore the
>> spam).
> Not quite. In this month alone 191 messages, excluding spam, were posted > to clc++ while clc++m received 32.
But earlier you wrote:
> That's what moderators do: enforce arbitrary rules. There is a reason why
> comp.lanc.c++ tends to have more than 10 times the traffic that
> comp.lang.c++.moderated currently does.
Ike Naar wrote:
> On 2012-10-10, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Does it?
>>> It did once upon a time, now the two are about equal (if you ignore the
>>> spam).
>> Not quite. In this month alone 191 messages, excluding spam, were posted
>> to clc++ while clc++m received 32.
> But earlier you wrote:
>> That's what moderators do: enforce arbitrary rules. There is a reason
>> why comp.lanc.c++ tends to have more than 10 times the traffic that
>> comp.lang.c++.moderated currently does.
> 191 > 10 * 32 ?
In October 2012, up to October 10th, clc++ received 191 posts while clc++m received 32. These are the total number of posts, excluding spam, hosted by aioe.org. As you can understand, 191/32 ~= 6.
But there are other sources of data, such as google groups. According to google groups, in the last two months (August and September) clc++ received 1349 messages, while clc++m received in the same period only 128 posts.
Hence, 1349/128 ~= 10. But these numbers are debatable, as they include spam.
