newsgroup suggestion
Yamin
This is just a suggesstion I was thinking of. I'm not sure how much use it
would be, but I figured I'd post anyways.
Basically, I was thinking an admin could do a Top post (like post with a
data Dec 11, 2010 ) or something like that and in that top post simply put a
link to the faq, an explanation of what is on topic....At the very least a
person could not claim ignorance of any of the policies if its right on the
news group.
Yamin
Neil Butterworth
news:GGze8.5470$tA.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Firstly, to paraphrase The Matrix - "There is no admin."
Secondly, Shiva already does this, but in a more reader-friendly way than
you suggest.
Thirdly, it is up to _all_ usenet newbies to lurk in the newsgroup for at
least a week before posting to see how the group works. If more people did
this (and I for one simply cannot understand why they do not) there would
far fewer off-topic posts.
NeilB
PS Did you observe the the lurking rule above before you posted this?
Edwin Robert Tisdale
> I was thinking an administrator could do a top post
> (like post with a data Dec 11, 2010 ) or something like that
> and in that top post simply put a link to the faq and
> an explanation of what is on topic.
> At the very least, a person could not claim ignorance
> of any of the policies if its right on the news group.
It isn't necessary. Questions from new subscribers
are welcome in the comp.lang.c++ newsgroup.
They will be directed to the comp.lang.c++ FAQ
if it is a Frequently Answered Question.
They will be redirected to a more appropriate newsgroup
if they are off topic.
Please ignore the off topic cops.
The comp.lang.c++ newsgroup is NOT moderated
so they are merely expressing their opinions.
These opinions are NOT usually directed at new subscribers
but other unwary subscribers who might respond
to off topic articles without careful consideration.
Neil Butterworth
news:3C7ADAA7...@jpl.nasa.gov...
> Yamin wrote:
>
> Please ignore the off topic cops.
> The comp.lang.c++ newsgroup is NOT moderated
> so they are merely expressing their opinions.
> These opinions are NOT usually directed at new subscribers
> but other unwary subscribers who might respond
> to off topic articles without careful consideration.
Some evidence for this?
As someone that has frequently been accused of being an "off topic cop" I
can say with my hand on my heart that I have never criticised other posters
for responding to off-topic posts. My attitude is:
- tell them they are off-topic
- tell them where they will be on-topic
- ignore the thread thereafter, unless it gets on-topic again
As far as I can see the other "off topic cops" (in as much as they exist) do
the same.
NeilB
Yamin
"Neil Butterworth" <neil_but...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3c7ad008$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> "Yamin" <y2bi...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
> news:GGze8.5470$tA.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Hey all,
> >
> > This is just a suggesstion I was thinking of. I'm not sure how much use
> it
> > would be, but I figured I'd post anyways.
> >
> > Basically, I was thinking an admin could do a Top post (like post with a
> > data Dec 11, 2010 ) or something like that and in that top post simply
put
> a
> > link to the faq, an explanation of what is on topic....At the very least
a
> > person could not claim ignorance of any of the policies if its right on
> the
> > news group.
>
> Firstly, to paraphrase The Matrix - "There is no admin."
You seem to be quite the admin. Well then let me rephrase the term to be:
"long timer user"
> Secondly, Shiva already does this, but in a more reader-friendly way than
> you suggest.
>
> Thirdly, it is up to _all_ usenet newbies to lurk in the newsgroup for at
> least a week before posting to see how the group works. If more people did
> this (and I for one simply cannot understand why they do not) there would
> far fewer off-topic posts.
It's quite simple why people don't. If a person has a question they don't
understand. They've googled and what not. They go to a newsgroup and they
post. I don't think they should sit around and read posts for a week before
posting their question. It's just not practical to expect people to do
this. But it would be practical to have people see the top post of a
newsgroupp before posting. And if it says "NEWSGROUP RULES - READ FIRST" as
a subject, the rules might get read a bit more and would be a nice link to
the faq to help people.
> NeilB
>
> PS Did you observe the the lurking rule above before you posted this?
I've been here for a more than a few months Neil. I'm not a usenet newbie
nor a newbie to this group, nor do I think I've posted off-topic here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mike Hewson
Indeed, and I'll admit to being a part time cop, and I try to have an
informative/bounce reply ratio exceeding 2 ( no critique of other's habits
implied here ). I would take exception to "merely expressing their
opinions", as ( not surprisingly ) the FAQ gives guidance to all of this. I
think "expressing their interpretation of the FAQ" is more accurate, albeit
that one can obviously suffer from faulty implementation. :-) I, for one, am
happy to concede to precedence - aka 'whatever happened prior to my turning
up here' - which the FAQ embodies. I'd hope that a moderator for a moderated
group acts similiarly.
As for ignoring any posters, cops included, then that is quite naturally
at anyone's pleasure. However in my time here ( coming up two years
shortly ) too many essentially selfish posters concentrate on the 'news'
aspect and not enough on the 'group' - by that I mean they want their
particular issue resolved to maximize their use of their time for their
problem, but stuff anyone else!
I deal with abberent/abhorrent posters ( you know who you are... ) via
my browser's 'shit list' facility. This produces a light grey text on a pale
white background - whereupon my ageing eyes can't discern the detail. :-)
Notably, others may not have that convenience though.
As for this thread's original proposal: it certainly sounds good, but in
practice I think not. We are not engaging in some legal contracts here, with
clauses for enforceable punishment in the breach. The top posting scheme as
described would be like water of a duck's back for many, and easily
deflected by a flick of 'yes buttery' - then you're back to square
((((12*6)/8) % 5)- 3).
--
Cheers
--
Hewson::Mike
"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack
the time to make it shorter."
- Blaise Pascal
FAQ's
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ : http://snurse-l.org/acllc-c++/faq
comp.lang.c++ : http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
NOS...@rigney.org
isn't the onldest message on my news server. Even worse, your news server
will expire and delete the oldest post on your news server at a different
time than mine. Most likely, MUCH sooner than mine(I keep postings for
over 3 months). If your news server deletes messages after one week, I'm
going to end up with 12 "top posts" before the first one gets deleted from
my server.
Further, there is no "admin" for usenet groups as a whole.
Perhaps you should do a bit of reading on how newsgroups work.
-parc
Dave Mikesell
> As someone that has frequently been accused of being an "off topic cop" I
> can say with my hand on my heart that I have never criticised other posters
> for responding to off-topic posts. My attitude is:
>
> - tell them they are off-topic
> - tell them where they will be on-topic
> - ignore the thread thereafter, unless it gets on-topic again
>
> As far as I can see the other "off topic cops" (in as much as they exist)
Do we get to carry guns??!! Cool...
Attila Feher
[SNIP]
> It's quite simple why people don't. If a person has a question they don't
> understand. They've googled and what not. They go to a newsgroup and they
> post. I don't think they should sit around and read posts for a week before
> posting their question. It's just not practical to expect people to do
> this. But it would be practical to have people see the top post of a
> newsgroupp before posting. And if it says "NEWSGROUP RULES - READ FIRST" as
> a subject, the rules might get read a bit more and would be a nice link to
> the faq to help people.
Following your logic, it is quite OK to sh*t in your living room, if I
think I have no time to look for the toilet...
A
Tim Slattery
>Basically, I was thinking an admin could do a Top post (like post with a
>data Dec 11, 2010 ) or something like that and
Posts dated in the future appear on the top of the list of posts ONLY
in Outlook Express (near as I can tell). Those of us with more
reasonable software don't even notice future-dated posts, while OE
users rant and rave about them.
--
Tim Slattery
Slatt...@bls.gov
Yamin
"Attila Feher" <Attila...@lmf.ericsson.se> wrote in message
news:3C7B8220...@lmf.ericsson.se...
I unfortunately do not share your wonderful sense of logic. If someone has
a valid question, how can it be considered shitting? If your vision of a
news group is one where only a select group of long time friends can ask
questions to each other, then continue in your logic. But I suppose that
witty response is all you need as validation, so there's no point in
continuing.
> A
Yamin
"Tim Slattery" <Slatt...@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:te4n7uofkj5c1s8sp...@4ax.com...
Fair enough. Thanks for the more sane reponse.
> --
> Tim Slattery
> Slatt...@bls.gov
Attila Feher
> > > post. I don't think they should sit around and read posts for a week
> before
> > > posting their question. It's just not practical to expect people to do
> > > this. But it would be practical to have people see the top post of a
> > > newsgroupp before posting. And if it says "NEWSGROUP RULES - READ
> FIRST" as
> > > a subject, the rules might get read a bit more and would be a nice link
> to
> > > the faq to help people.
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > Following your logic, it is quite OK to sh*t in your living room, if I
> > think I have no time to look for the toilet...
>
> I unfortunately do not share your wonderful sense of logic. If someone has
> a valid question, how can it be considered shitting?
Khm. We were talking about off-topic (not valid) and FAQ (not-valid
again) questions... Of course, if you change the subject...
> If your vision of a
> news group is one where only a select group of long time friends can ask
> questions to each other, then continue in your logic.
Ah. OK. No arguments, so getting personal. No. I don't. So do not
go for a clearvoyeaur job, 'cause you will fail miserably. But there is
a difference between not gicing a damn about the rules of a professional
community and being misguided or lost! And there is a clear difference
between professional and non-professional behaviour...
BTW, there is a very good way to spot a USENET newbie: he desperately
tries to change the rules, and gives "revolutionary, good and very
clever" advices on how to do it. Instead of just learning how to use
the usenet...
> But I suppose that
> witty response is all you need as validation, so there's no point in
> continuing.
Oh. Ego again. I was not trying to evaluate you or get personal, so I
do nto see why do you need to defend your ego. but back to topic: yes.
If you have nothing to say, only getting personal... there is really no
need to continue.
*TPLONK*
A
Yamin
> Yamin wrote:
> > > > post. I don't think they should sit around and read posts for a
week
> > before
> > > > posting their question. It's just not practical to expect people to
do
> > > > this. But it would be practical to have people see the top post of
a
> > > > newsgroupp before posting. And if it says "NEWSGROUP RULES - READ
> > FIRST" as
> > > > a subject, the rules might get read a bit more and would be a nice
link
> > to
> > > > the faq to help people.
> > > [SNIP]
> > >
> > > Following your logic, it is quite OK to sh*t in your living room, if I
> > > think I have no time to look for the toilet...
> >
> > I unfortunately do not share your wonderful sense of logic. If someone
has
> > a valid question, how can it be considered shitting?
>
> Khm. We were talking about off-topic (not valid) and FAQ (not-valid
> again) questions... Of course, if you change the subject...
>
Where in this thread do you see me talking about off-topic posts.
Neil says - it is custom for a person to lurk around a newsgroup for a while
before posting.
I say - No, they should just post after googling...
you say - that's like shitting in your house because you're too lazy to find
a toilet
That basically sums it up very well. If you were mistaken or just trigger
happy with the typical OT complaint, that's fine and you should read what's
been written first.
> > If your vision of a
> > news group is one where only a select group of long time friends can ask
> > questions to each other, then continue in your logic.
>
> Ah. OK. No arguments, so getting personal. No. I don't. So do not
> go for a clearvoyeaur job, 'cause you will fail miserably. But there is
> a difference between not gicing a damn about the rules of a professional
> community and being misguided or lost! And there is a clear difference
> between professional and non-professional behaviour...
>
> BTW, there is a very good way to spot a USENET newbie: he desperately
> tries to change the rules, and gives "revolutionary, good and very
> clever" advices on how to do it. Instead of just learning how to use
> the usenet...
When did I ever want to change the rules? What rules are we talking about
here? Methinks you're just trigger happy about knocking people off who even
remotely mention OT. According to Neil, what I suggessted is already being
done by Shiva, just not as a top post, but as a normal post. Did I say,
"HEY GUYS, check out this great idea? It would solve all our problems? " I
don't think so.
>
> > But I suppose that
> > witty response is all you need as validation, so there's no point in
> > continuing.
>
> Oh. Ego again. I was not trying to evaluate you or get personal, so I
> do nto see why do you need to defend your ego. but back to topic: yes.
> If you have nothing to say, only getting personal... there is really no
> need to continue.
heed your own advice - "BTW, there is a very good way to spot a USENET
newbie: he desperately"
But I've learned not to expect much from people whose sole response to
everything is you're a newbie, so you don't know anything.
>
> *TPLONK*
>
> A
Yamin
As I don't wish to be nitpicked. By this thread, I mean the continuation of
Neil's newsgroup lurker comment,
Neil Butterworth
> Neil says - it is custom for a person to lurk around a newsgroup for a
while
> before posting.
> I say - No, they should just post after googling...
Can I just offer another analogy which may explain why most people here
disagree with what you are saying?
You are at a party and notice a group of people you don't know conducting an
animated converstaion. You go up to them an
a) Burst into the conversation saying "Hi my name's Jim and I've got a
problem with my XXXX"
or
b) Listen to what they are saying for a few minutes before attempting to
join in the conversation, sticking to the topic they are talking about.
If your response is (a) then I bet you don't get invited out much.
NeilB
Yamin
Neil,
I do understand and respect that point of view. I made reference to it in
an exxagerated manner when I asked if a newsgroup is only for 'long time
friends' Do I personally share that view? No. I think in every newsgroup
there is a core group of people, people who maintain an interest but don't
appear very active, and people who just pop by for help. If they just pop
in for help, this is a c++ forum, and they should not be shunned or looked
down upon for not mingling first. If they don't say at least say "Hi"
first, I may get a bit annoyed.
>
> NeilB
>
>
>
>
Neil Butterworth
> "Neil Butterworth" <neil_but...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:3c7bb...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> >
> > "Yamin" <y2bi...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
> > news:rkOe8.73770$JZ.87...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > > Neil says - it is custom for a person to lurk around a newsgroup for a
> > while
> > > before posting.
> > > I say - No, they should just post after googling...
> >
> > Can I just offer another analogy which may explain why most people here
> > disagree with what you are saying?
> >
> > You are at a party and notice a group of people you don't know
conducting
> an
> > animated converstaion. You go up to them an
> >
> > a) Burst into the conversation saying "Hi my name's Jim and I've got a
> > problem with my XXXX"
> >
> > or
> >
> > b) Listen to what they are saying for a few minutes before attempting to
> > join in the conversation, sticking to the topic they are talking about.
> >
> > If your response is (a) then I bet you don't get invited out much.
>
> Neil,
>
> I do understand and respect that point of view. I made reference to it in
> an exxagerated manner when I asked if a newsgroup is only for 'long time
> friends'
That is _not_ what I am suggesting. If it were I would have offered a third
scenario:
c) Hide in a corner until someone deigns to talk to you.
I don't think this is sensible behaviour (on either side).
NeilB
JeffC
This is ridiculous. His recommendation is quite reasonable. It is not
reasonable to expect people to lurk for a week or more before posting their
question. Anyone who thinks that's practical is living in an ideological
dream world. People are going to post as soon as they have a question and as
soon as they learn of this newsgroup. The question is how to make it usable
so that everyone gets what they want. Newbies get to ask a question, hard
liners such as yourself aren't burdened with too many questions that don't
belong here or are in the FAQ. Or in your vernacular, let people in the
living room know there's a toilet down the hall (quite a silly analogy, since
everyone who can go to the bathroom by themselves knows bathrooms exist. By
definition, newbies don't know how this house is designed.) Also, it's not a
question of TIME to look for the toilet, it's a question of knowing how things
work. Right off the top of my head, I don't see anything wrong with Yamin's
suggestion. Anyone who isn't interested in making things more clear to
newbies is then only interested in being a net cop.
JeffC
>
> As someone that has frequently been accused of being an "off topic cop" I
> can say with my hand on my heart that I have never criticised other posters
> for responding to off-topic posts. My attitude is:
>
> - tell them they are off-topic
> - tell them where they will be on-topic
> - ignore the thread thereafter, unless it gets on-topic again
This is all a red herring and begs the question: why do we have to keep doing
it? What's wrong with a post dated post to point to the FAQ? If there's a
serious problem with that, I don't see it. Sounds like an win-win situation
to me.
JeffC
> in Outlook Express (near as I can tell).
Are you sure? Well, it's a moot point. If it doesn't work for some browsers,
it's not a good idea.
Alexander Terekhov
the way from some Cyberian (Silicon Taiga) little
town to more developed Cyberspace areas, translated>
: Attila&NeilB-off-topic-COPS (THE professionals)
: and Yamin-NOT-at-all-usenet-NEWBIE (professional
: too), *BEWARE*!! A couple of semi-professional
: off-topic-BANDITS (together with one or two
: cyber-hell's angels) ARE watching you; Khm, Khm.
regards,
alexander.
spa...@austin.rr.com
>
> "Neil Butterworth" <neil_but...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:3c7ad008$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > "Yamin" <y2bi...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
> > news:GGze8.5470$tA.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > > Basically, I was thinking an admin could do a Top post (like post with
a
> > > data Dec 11, 2010 ) or something like that and in that top post simply
> put
> > a
> > > link to the faq, an explanation of what is on topic....At the very
least
> a
> > > person could not claim ignorance of any of the policies if its right
on
> > the
> > > news group.
> >
> > PS Did you observe the the lurking rule above before you posted this?
>
> I've been here for a more than a few months Neil. I'm not a usenet newbie
> nor a newbie to this group, nor do I think I've posted off-topic here.
>
The C++ language has no knowledge of "top post" or "what is on topic" or
"newbie". You would be more likely to get help from a newsgroups such as
alt.test
-dnult
Phlip
> The C++ language has no knowledge of "top post" or "what is on topic" or
> "newbie". You would be more likely to get help from a newsgroups such
> as alt.test
Discussions about a newsgroup's usage are on-topic on all text newsgroups.
Flames, however, are off-topic.
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net
-- It's a small Web, after all... --
Mario Knezovic
It depends on how you understand it.
I would understand it this way (using your analogy):
It is okay to *ask* somebody for the toilet when you feel an urge and do not
have the time to look around for a bit for yourself. Even if you do not know
the place and do not know the people.
I guess that is what he meant and I totally agree there.
While I understand there are certain rules in the world and while I try to
follow them as good as I can, I think we should be tolerant toward people
who do not follow them 100%. Everything else leads to fascism. In RL, in
newsgroups, basically anywhere.
Just my opinion.
Cheers,
Mario
Programmer Dude
> Are you sure? Well, it's a moot point. If it doesn't work for some
> browsers, it's not a good idea.
It's not a good idea. Sort order--if any--is often user-configurable.
--
|_ CJSonnack <Ch...@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Programmer Dude
>> If a person has a question they don't understand. They've googled
>> and what not. They go to a newsgroup and they post. I don't think
>> they should sit around and read posts for a week before posting their
>> question. It's just not practical to expect people to do this.
>
> Following your logic, it is quite OK to sh*t in your living room, if
> I think I have no time to look for the toilet...
More like expecting someone to go live at the library for a week before
they can read one of the books.
I agree with Yamin, although with a caveat: asking a question *properly*,
which means with some respect and having read at least a few messages to
get some sense of place.
Obviously, ideally, one should try to find the FAQ for a group (and they
*are* easy enough to find) if for no other reason than not to look stupid
asking a well-known FAQ.
Old timers know this, but it behooves us to understand that the 'net has
changed and is no longer the 'net of old. It's become a place for the
masses now and a litle understanding of the ramifications of that in all
regards would go a long way in making everyone--newbie and oldie alike--
happier.
Programmer Dude
> You are at a party and notice a group of people you don't know conducting
> an animated converstaion. You go up to them an
>
> a) Burst into the conversation saying "Hi my name's Jim and I've got a
> problem with my XXXX"
>
> or
>
> b) Listen to what they are saying for a few minutes before attempting to
> join in the conversation, sticking to the topic they are talking about.
Do ya see a *slight* difference between listening for a FEW MINUTES and
needing to lurk for a week?
If ones purpose is social--per your analogy--then the delay to ease
comfortably into a social group makes good sense, although I HAVE made
long-term and good friends by walking up to groups of strangers at a
party and just--respectfully and politely--joining in the conversation.
Indeed, at a party, that's pretty much expected behavior. It's called
mingling.
But consider an analogy that reflects more accurately the situation
we often encounter: You're at a party and you encounter a problem of
some sort (say you spilled your drink on yourself). Would you expect
to go up to a group and wait some period of time before asking for
help? Or would you go up to a group and--respectfully and politely--
butt in and ask for help?
THAT is the situation many of us find ourselves in. We're working on
a problem and get stuck. After exhausting other avenues, we sometimes
find a USENET group that can help. But I need help NOW, today, not in
a week. And I've found pretty 100% of the time, if you ask nicely,
you'll get help if help is to be had.
Dietmar Kuehl
Programmer Dude wrote:
> Do ya see a *slight* difference between listening for a FEW MINUTES and
> needing to lurk for a week?
I fail to see the difference! Nobody says you are supposed to read the
messages of the week after you got your question before you post it.
Instead, you can just use a reasonably setup newsserver, get the
messages of the last week and read through them. It will probably not
be done in a few minutes but investing something like two or three
hours will give you a feeling of what is going on in forum.
Unlike in real world conversations where you can only listen to the
stuff after you joined, you can read the conversation before you joined
in Usenet (if your newsserver is too fucked up to support this, have a
look at the last week's articles at groups.google.com.
> But consider an analogy that reflects more accurately the situation
> we often encounter: You're at a party and you encounter a problem of
> some sort (say you spilled your drink on yourself). Would you expect
> to go up to a group and wait some period of time before asking for
> help? Or would you go up to a group and--respectfully and politely--
> butt in and ask for help?
If you have urgent help needs, you are lost at Usenet anyway and you
will have to pay for support: Sorry, dude, Usenet is not your free
replacement for support! It is a free service provided by people kind
enough to help and you simply have to play to *these* peoples rules, not
to yours! ... and a simple rule in Usenet is to get a feeling of how the
discussion is going before butting into a forum!
> THAT is the situation many of us find ourselves in. We're working on
> a problem and get stuck. After exhausting other avenues, we sometimes
> find a USENET group that can help. But I need help NOW, today, not in
> a week.
You can grasp the contents of a newsgroup by reading through last week's
articles. This is as good as reading the next week's. But I guess you
have worked out this insight yourself already because I don't assume you
are stupid beyond any help...
--
<mailto:dietma...@yahoo.com> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
Phaidros eaSE - Easy Software Engineering: <http://www.phaidros.com/>