Simple Question regarding running .py program

[Caroline Hou]

Hi all!

I just started learning Python by myself and I have an extremely simple question now!
I am in my Python interpreter now and I want to open/edit a program called nobel.py. But when I typed >>> python nobel.py, it gave me a "SyntaxError:invalid syntax”( I've changed to the correct directory)what should I do?
I also want to run the program, but as I double-clicked the program, a command window pops up and closes immediately. How can I see the result of the program run?
Could anyone help me please? I am pretty confused here...Thank you!

[Dave Angel]

It'd be nice to specify that you're running Windows, and also what
version of the interpreter, although in this case the latter doesn't matter.


Go to a shell (cmd.exe), change to the directory containing that script,
and type the command as you did.

On linux: davea@think:~$ python nobel.py
On Windows: c:\mydir\myscript > python nobel.py

If you're already in the python interpreter, then running python is
useless -- it's already running. In that case, you might want to use
import. However, I recommend against it at first, as it opens up some
other problems you haven't experience with yet.

When you say you "double clicked the program', we have to guess you
might have meant in MS Explorer. If you do that, it launches a cmd, it
runs the python system, and it closes the cmd. Blame Windows for not
reading your mind. If you want the cmd window to stick around, you
COULD end your program with an raw_input function call, but frequently
that won't work. The right answer is the first one above... Open a
shell (perhaps with a menu like DOS BOX), change...

That way, when the program finishes, you can see what happened, or
didn't happen, and you can run it again using the uparrow key.

BTW, you don't need to send email to both the python-list and to the
newsgroup. The newsgroup is automatically fed from the list. But since
you're posting from google groups, that's just one of the bugs. Many
folks here simply filter out everything from google groups, so your post
is invisible to them.


--

DaveA

[Caroline Hou]

Hi Dave!

thank you very much for your quick reply! I did manage to get the program run from cmd.exe.
So does it mean that if I want to use python interactively,I should use the interpreter,while if I just want to run a python program, I should use DOS shell instead?
Also, how could I edit my script? I have sth called "IDLE" installed along with python. Is it the right place to write/edit my script?
Sorry about these semi-idiot questions but it is really hard to find an article or book that covers such basic stuffs!
Thank you!

Caroline Hou

[Caroline Hou]

On Monday, 12 November 2012 21:25:08 UTC-5, Dave Angel wrote:

[Terry Reedy]

On 11/12/2012 9:45 PM, Caroline Hou wrote:

> Also, how could I edit my script? I have sth called "IDLE" installed
> along with python. Is it the right place to write/edit my script?

IDLE is one way to edit; I use it. When you want to run, hit F5 and
stdout and stderr output goes to the shell window.

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[Dave Angel]

On 11/12/2012 09:45 PM, Caroline Hou wrote:
<snip all the doublespaced quotes>

>
> Hi Dave!
>
> thank you very much for your quick reply! I did manage to get the program run from cmd.exe.
> So does it mean that if I want to use python interactively,I should use the interpreter,while if I just want to run a python program, I should use DOS shell instead?

The DOS shell is one answer that settled both of your original
questions. It's also how I run about 90% of the time. But different
people have different preferences.

The interpreter is great for experimenting. But if you have non-trivial
code (presumably written in a file), then you have to import it. Which
means references to the stuff there are done with mymodule.myfunction.
That can get tiresome after a while. And if you have to change the
source file, it's not always safe to reload it (so I never do). If I've
imported something, and that something has changed, I quit the
interpreter and start it over.

When you're running the script as a whole from the DOS box, it's always
a clean start.

> Also, how could I edit my script? I have sth called "IDLE" installed along with python. Is it the right place to write/edit my script?

Any text editor will do, but especially one with some knowledge of the
Python syntax. Don't use Notepad. I've never used IDLE (I use a
commercial one called Komodo IDE), so I can't say how good it is. Many
people love IDLE, though.

The thing is, any IDE will require some setup (setting directory paths,
project settings, etc.), and some getting used to. Some don't work very
well for GUI programs, others truncate traceback listings (maybe giving
you a GUI view of the same information). Some apparently won't even let
you copy/paste a traceback into a mail message. So it's very useful to
also get thoroughly acquainted with the cmd prompt.

> Sorry about these semi-idiot questions but it is really hard to find an article or book that covers such basic stuffs!

Nothing wrong with those questions. Welcome to Python-list.

--

DaveA

[Ramchandra Apte]

IDLE is recommended for newbies like you because an IDE requires too much configuration.
When you start writing a big project, you can use an IDE.

[Caroline Hou]

Thank you Dave and everybody here for your helpful comments!This place is awesome! I found this group when I googled python-list. Seems like this is not the usual way you guys access the list?

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Caroline Hou <joyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Dave and everybody here for your helpful comments!This place is awesome! I found this group when I googled python-list. Seems like this is not the usual way you guys access the list?

There are several ways to communicate with this list.

* The comp.lang.python newsgroup - get a newsreader (there are plenty
around), and either connect to your ISP's news server (if they have
one that carries c.l.p) or to a public server, some of which cost
money.
* Use a news-to-web gateway such as Google Groups. That specific one
is deprecated on this list, as there's more noise than signal from
Google Groups.
* The mailing list python-list, delivered directly to your inbox many
times a day. This is what I personally use.

Try here:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

ChrisA

[ru...@yahoo.com]

On 11/13/2012 09:10 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Caroline Hou wrote:
>> Thank you Dave and everybody here for your helpful comments!This
>> place is awesome! I found this group when I googled python-list.
>> Seems like this is not the usual way you guys access the list?
>
> There are several ways to communicate with this list.

> [...]

> * Use a news-to-web gateway such as Google Groups. That
> specific one is deprecated on this list, as there's more
> noise than signal from Google Groups.

Caroline, Chris is mistaken about this, if for no other
reason than there is no authority here empowered to decide
to deprecate anything. What Chris should have said is
that there are some people on this list who don't like
Google Groups for whatever reason and encourage others
to ignore posts from Google Groups.

How successful this boycott effort is is not clear.

I use Google Groups as it suits my needs better than
any of the alternatives, and so do many others. Both
of the other alternatives Chris mentioned involve too
much setup or overhead for those who read/post here
only occasionally. GG fills this niche adequately
if used with care.

If you do use Google Groups to post, there are a
couple of things you should be careful of:

* You'll sometimes see a checkbox above the GG send
window that is a CC to the python mailing list
(<pytho...@python.org>) which is checked by default.
Uncheck that before sending, or the list will get
two copies of your message.

* GG doesn't do a very good job in quoting the post
you are replying to. If you look at your recent
post here:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2012-November/635070.html
(or on GG) you will see lots and lots of lines empty
save for the ">" quote markers. This makes a post
hard to read.

A way to avoid this is to remove the blank extra blank
lines in the GG send window by hand before posting.

Alternatively, many email programs have a "paste as
quotation" option when writing mail. What I do is
to open a blank new email message, copy the original
post I'm replying to from GG, paste-as-quotation into
the new mail window, then copy and paste back into the
GG send window. Pretty easy to do once you get used
to it.

Hope this helps and provides a little more accurate
info about posting from GG than has been provided so
far.

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM, <ru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 09:10 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> * Use a news-to-web gateway such as Google Groups. That
>> specific one is deprecated on this list, as there's more
>> noise than signal from Google Groups.
>
> Caroline, Chris is mistaken about this, if for no other
> reason than there is no authority here empowered to decide
> to deprecate anything. What Chris should have said is
> that there are some people on this list who don't like
> Google Groups for whatever reason and encourage others
> to ignore posts from Google Groups.
>
> How successful this boycott effort is is not clear.

To be more accurate: This is deprecated *by members of* this list. As
there is no commanding/controlling entity here, it's up to each
individual to make a decision - for instance, abusive users get
killfiled rather than banned. The use of Google Groups to post is
deprecated in the original sense of the word: strongly disapproved of.

My own opinion on the matter is that if it takes as much effort as you
describe to use GG properly, it's wasting your time on a massive
scale. Surely it's easier to read and post email?

ChrisA

[ru...@yahoo.com]

On 11/13/2012 11:02 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM, rurpy wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 09:10 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> * Use a news-to-web gateway such as Google Groups. That
>>> specific one is deprecated on this list, as there's more
>>> noise than signal from Google Groups.
>>
>> Caroline, Chris is mistaken about this, if for no other
>> reason than there is no authority here empowered to decide
>> to deprecate anything. What Chris should have said is
>> that there are some people on this list who don't like
>> Google Groups for whatever reason and encourage others
>> to ignore posts from Google Groups.
>>
>> How successful this boycott effort is is not clear.
>
> To be more accurate: This is deprecated *by members of* this list. As
> there is no commanding/controlling entity here, it's up to each
> individual to make a decision - for instance, abusive users get
> killfiled rather than banned. The use of Google Groups to post is
> deprecated in the original sense of the word: strongly disapproved of.

s/deprecated *by members of*/deprecated *by some members of*/

(and accuracy could probably be increased further by replacing
"some" with "a few".)

And again,

s/strongly disapproved of/strongly disapproved of by some/

I was objecting to your attempts to make it sound like a
fact that GG posts were nearly universally condemned here,
an error you repeat again above.

> My own opinion on the matter is that if it takes as much effort as you
> describe to use GG properly, it's wasting your time on a massive
> scale. Surely it's easier to read and post email?

"that much effort"? Do you consider a couple of copy-
pastes to be "that much effort"? "wasting your time
on a massive scale"? Sheesh, get a grip man, let's not
get silly.

On the other hand finding and configuring a newsreader
for someone whose never done it before, as you recommend,
is a major time consumer. And signing up for python-list
email, posting, dealing with several days' volume, and
then signing off because one does not want to read it
full time[*], is no picnic either compared to using GG.

Sorry, but there are *good* reasons for some people
to use GG whether you want to admit it or not.

==
[*] Actually, now that I think about it, IIRC one can sign
up for python-list email, and go into the mailman settings
and disable mail delivery, allowing one to post to the list
via email yet read the list via GG, Gmane or whatever.
However, this is not going to be obvious to many occasional
posters, and is still a PITA compared to just posting from
GG as our hypothetical user does for all the other groups
he/she participates in.

[rusi]

On Nov 14, 12:02 pm, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> ==
> [*] Actually, now that I think about it, IIRC one can sign
> up for python-list email, and go into the mailman settings
> and disable mail delivery, allowing one to post to the list
> via email yet read the list via GG, Gmane or whatever.
> However, this is not going to be obvious to many occasional
> posters, and is still a PITA compared to just posting from
> GG as our hypothetical user does for all the other groups
> he/she participates in.

Yes this would be (for me) my most preferred option if I could figure
out a way of threading into a preexisting thread.

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:02 PM, <ru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 11:02 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> To be more accurate: This is deprecated *by members of* this list. As
>> there is no commanding/controlling entity here, it's up to each
>> individual to make a decision - for instance, abusive users get
>> killfiled rather than banned. The use of Google Groups to post is
>> deprecated in the original sense of the word: strongly disapproved of.
>
> s/deprecated *by members of*/deprecated *by some members of*/
>
> (and accuracy could probably be increased further by replacing
> "some" with "a few".)

I stand by what I said. Members, plural, of this list. I didn't say
"all members of", ergo the word "some" is superfluous, yet not
needful, as Princess Ida put it.

In any case, the fact remains that a number of this list's best
responders have killfiled Google Groups posters as a whole.
Consequently, GG forces you to go to quite a bit of extra work AND
prevents your message from getting through to everyone. Why go to
extra work to get a worse result? I am therefore not going to
recommend Google Groups to anyone as a means of posting to
python-list/c.l.p, any more than I would recommend writing it on a
Post-It note and feeding it into your floppy drive.

ChrisA

[ru...@yahoo.com]

On 11/14/2012 06:35 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:02 PM, rurpy wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:02 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> To be more accurate: This is deprecated *by members of* this list. As
>>> there is no commanding/controlling entity here, it's up to each
>>> individual to make a decision - for instance, abusive users get
>>> killfiled rather than banned. The use of Google Groups to post is
>>> deprecated in the original sense of the word: strongly disapproved of.
>>
>> s/deprecated *by members of*/deprecated *by some members of*/
>>
>> (and accuracy could probably be increased further by replacing
>> "some" with "a few".)
>
> I stand by what I said. Members, plural, of this list. I didn't say
> "all members of", ergo the word "some" is superfluous, yet not
> needful, as Princess Ida put it.

Then you would have no problem I suppose with "Australians
are racists" because some Australians are racist and I
didn't say "all"?

I stand by what I said. Using the passive voice to
give a false sense of authority, leaving out quantifiers
when there are likely thousands of readers of this group
perhaps a half dozen who've been vocal against GG, is
not an accurate description.

> In any case, the fact remains that a number of this list's best
> responders have killfiled Google Groups posters as a whole.
> Consequently, GG forces you to go to quite a bit of extra work AND
> prevents your message from getting through to everyone. Why go to
> extra work to get a worse result?

As a user of GG, Usenet and email lists I claim you
are wrong. GG does NOT require "quite a bit of extra
work". If it did, I wouldn't use it. For occasional
posters, GG is EASIER. (It would be even easier if
Google would fix their execrable quoting behaviour
but as I showed, it is easy to work around that.)
I think you are ignoring setup time and a number
of other secondary factors, things that are very
significant to occasional posters, in your evaluation
of "easy".

As for "best", that is clearly a matter of opinion.
The very fact that someone would killfile an entire
class of poster based on a some others' posts reeks
of intolerance and group-think. And since some of the
anti-GG proponents are also among the most opinionated
and argumentative participants here, their not reading
GG posts could be seen as an advantage.

As an aside, I've noticed that some those most vocal
against GG have also been very vocal about this group
being inclusive.

If one observes that women post here (as a group)
a lot less frequently then men, and if GG is easier
for occasional posters, then the anti-GG attitude
expressed here by a few would have the effect of
disproportionately discriminating against women.

> I am therefore not going to
> recommend Google Groups to anyone as a means of posting to
> python-list/c.l.p,

That's fine. But when doing so please leave out the
false metaphors...

> any more than I would recommend writing it on a
> Post-It note and feeding it into your floppy drive.

...such as posting here via GG is similar to feeding
post-its into a floppy drive.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:20:13 -0800, rurpy wrote:

> On 11/14/2012 06:35 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:

[...]

>> I stand by what I said. Members, plural, of this list. I didn't say
>> "all members of", ergo the word "some" is superfluous, yet not needful,
>> as Princess Ida put it.
>
> Then you would have no problem I suppose with "Australians are racists"
> because some Australians are racist and I didn't say "all"?

Speaking as an Australian, I wouldn't have a problem with that, because
Australians *are* racist. To the degree that we can talk about a
"national character", the national character of Australia is racist, even
if many Aussies aren't, and many more try not to be.

In any case, your example is provocative. Here's a less provocative
version:

[paraphrase]
Then you would have no problem I suppose with "People have two legs"
because some people have two legs and I didn't say "all"?
[end paraphrase]

> As a user of GG, Usenet and email lists I claim you are wrong. GG does
> NOT require "quite a bit of extra work". If it did, I wouldn't use it.
> For occasional posters, GG is EASIER. (It would be even easier if
> Google would fix their execrable quoting behaviour but as I showed, it
> is easy to work around that.) I think you are ignoring setup time and a
> number of other secondary factors, things that are very significant to
> occasional posters, in your evaluation of "easy".

I don't understand why you suggest counting setup time for the
alternatives to Google Groups, but *don't* consider setup time for Google
Groups. You had to create a Google Account didn't you? You've either put
in your mobile phone number -- and screw those who don't have one -- or
you get badgered every time you sign in. You do sign in don't you?

For *really* occasional posters, they might not even remember their
Google account details from one post to the next. So they have to either
create a new account, or go through the process of recreating it. Why do
you ignore these factors in *your* evaluation of "easy"?

We all do it -- when we talk about "easy" or "difficult", we have an
idealised generalised user in mind. Your idealised user is different from
Chris' idealised user. You are both generalising. And that's *my*
generalisation.

Even if you are right that Google Groups is easier for some users, in my
opinion it is easy in the same way as the Dark Side of the Force.
Quicker, faster, more seductive, but ultimately destructive.

> As for "best", that is clearly a matter of opinion. The very fact that
> someone would killfile an entire class of poster based on a some others'
> posts reeks of intolerance and group-think.

Intolerance? Yes. But group-think? You believe that people are merely
copying the group's prejudice against Google Groups. I don't think they
are. I think that the dislike against GG is group consensus based on the
evidence of our own eyes, not a mere prejudice. The use of Google Groups
is, as far as I can tell, the single most effective predictor of badly
written, badly thought out, badly formatted posts, and a common source of
spam.

As for intolerance, you say that like it is that a bad thing. Why should
people have to tolerate bad behaviour? Google Groups *encourages* bad
behaviour. Should we tolerate spam because any spam filter might
occasionally throw away a legitimate mail? Should we tolerate acid
attacks on women because occasionally there might be some woman who
actually deserves such a horrible fate? I don't think so. For many
things, intolerance is a *good* thing, and many people here believe that
intolerance for Google Groups is one of those cases.

You of course are free to make whatever arrangements to filter spam and
use Google Groups as you like, but you equally must respect other
people's right to control their own inbox by filtering away GG posters.

[...]

> As an aside, I've noticed that some those most vocal against GG have
> also been very vocal about this group being inclusive.

I call bullshit. If you are going to accuse people of being "very vocal"
against minorities, you damn well better have some evidence to back up
your claim.

And if you don't, I would expect a public apology for that slur.



--
Steven

[ru...@yahoo.com]

I wasn't very clear. I should have written "...those most vocal
against GG have also been very vocal *in favor* of this group being
inclusive."

In the next paragraph which you clipped I pointed out
the irony of that attitude versus one possible effect of
advocating the blacklisting of GG posters:

> > If one observes that women post here (as a group)
> > a lot less frequently then men, and if GG is easier
> > for occasional posters, then the anti-GG attitude
> > expressed here by a few would have the effect of
> > disproportionately discriminating against women.

Response to your other points will need to wait until
I have more time.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:07:53 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:20:13 -0800, rurpy wrote:

[...]

> [...]
>> As an aside, I've noticed that some those most vocal against GG have
>> also been very vocal about this group being inclusive.
>
> I call bullshit. If you are going to accuse people of being "very vocal"
> against minorities, you damn well better have some evidence to back up
> your claim.
>
> And if you don't, I would expect a public apology for that slur.

Ah, apparently I misread Rurpy's comment. I'm sorry, I was completely
wrong to accuse Rurpy of accusing others of being opposed to including
minorites in this group.

My apologies Rurpy, I don't know how I made that misreading.


--
Steven

[Terry Reedy]

On 11/13/2012 11:10 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Caroline Hou <joyho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you Dave and everybody here for your helpful comments!This place is awesome! I found this group when I googled python-list. Seems like this is not the usual way you guys access the list?
>

> There are several ways to communicate with this list.
>

> * The comp.lang.python newsgroup - get a newsreader (there are plenty
> around), and either connect to your ISP's news server (if they have
> one that carries c.l.p) or to a public server, some of which cost
> money.

> * Use a news-to-web gateway such as Google Groups. That specific one
> is deprecated on this list, as there's more noise than signal from
> Google Groups.

> * The mailing list python-list, delivered directly to your inbox many
> times a day. This is what I personally use.

news.gmane.org group gmane.comp.python.general
many 'mail' programs such as Outlook Express or Thunderbird also handle news

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[Terry Reedy]

On 11/14/2012 2:02 AM, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On the other hand finding and configuring a newsreader
> for someone whose never done it before, as you recommend,
> is a major time consumer.

Use a mail/news program such as Thunderbird and the newsreader comes for
free. Setting up a gmane account with Thunderbird was, as I remember
rather easy, easier than setting up a mail account.

--
Terry Jan Reedy

[ru...@yahoo.com]

On 11/14/2012 04:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:20:13 -0800, rurpy wrote:

I'll skip the issues already addressed by Joshua Landau.

>[...]

> I don't understand why you suggest counting setup time for the
> alternatives to Google Groups, but *don't* consider setup time for Google
> Groups. You had to create a Google Account didn't you? You've either put
> in your mobile phone number -- and screw those who don't have one -- or
> you get badgered every time you sign in. You do sign in don't you?

Yes I sign in. And I've never entered my mobile phone
number and no I don't get badgered every time (I've not
been asked when I logged in several times today and I
just tried again to confirm.) I have been asked in the
past and just ignore it -- click Save (or whatever the
button is) with a blank text box.

As was pointed out, a large number of people already
have Google accounts. And creating an account at
Google is not comparable to researching news readers,
downloading and installing software, setting up an
account, etc for someone who's never even heard of
usenet before. Subscribing to email is easier but
it has its own problems (all those email you don't
care about, the time delay (I've had to wait over 24
hours for a response for some email lists), what to
do when you're traveling, reading some groups via
email but others by GG. I've also had problems
trying to post through Gmane and then there were
Gmane's accessibly problems a few months ago, fixed
now but for how long?

The OP had already found her way to GG and managed
to post. So the incremental cost for her to *continue*
using GG is very low. That's in comparision to
*changing* to a new posting method.

I'm not saying the Google is always easier than an
alternative but for a significant number of people
it is. But most importantly it is *their* place to
say what is easier for them, not yours or mine.

[...]

> Even if you are right that Google Groups is easier for some users, in my
> opinion it is easy in the same way as the Dark Side of the Force.
> Quicker, faster, more seductive, but ultimately destructive.

Well, that's the best example of FUD I've seen in this
thread so far. Congratulations. ;-)

>> As for "best", that is clearly a matter of opinion. The very fact that
>> someone would killfile an entire class of poster based on a some others'
>> posts reeks of intolerance and group-think.
>
> Intolerance? Yes. But group-think? You believe that people are merely
> copying the group's prejudice against Google Groups.

Please don't tell me what I believe, especially when
you get it wrong.

> I don't think they
> are. I think that the dislike against GG is group consensus based on the
> evidence of our own eyes, not a mere prejudice. The use of Google Groups
> is, as far as I can tell, the single most effective predictor of badly
> written, badly thought out, badly formatted posts, and a common source of
> spam.

Again you repeat Chris Angelo's mistake (if it's a
mistake). "group's prejudice"? You've presented
no evidence that "the group" as a whole or in large
part (including many people who seldom if ever post)
share your view. Same with "consensus". A consensus
of whom? Are you saying there is a consensus among
those who dislike GG posts that they dislike GG posts?

You say the dislike is "not a mere prejudice" and yet
I can't help but wonder where the hard evidence is.
I've not seen it posted though I could have easily
missed it.

All the news/email tools I use make it a little work
to see where a post came from -- usually they'll be a
button somewhere or a menu item to show the headers
and one will scan those for the source. While easy
enough it is still (at least for me) much easier to
simply skip a post based on the subject/poster or
a quick peak at the contents.

So I've never had any inclination to look and have no
idea how many crap posts come from GG. Yet you claim
that a large percentage of this group has made the
effort to do that. (Or maybe there is an easier way
to check?)

However I can easily imagine how some could think
they are checking...

"Oh man, what a crap post! Let's check the headers.
Yup, just as I thought, Google Groups."

But of course, our genius doesn't keep any records
and the cases where he is wrong don't make as much
impression on his memory. Further, he doesn't bother
to check the headers on the non-crap posts. Even a
junior-high science student could see the problems
with this methodology.

And how many people actually do even that? Some may
find it an offensive suggestion but there is such a
thing as group psychology and there are people who
follow leaders. (I suspect those people are all of
"us" at least some of the time.) Further people tend
to be convinced even more easily when they think
"everybody knows it". So when a few of the more
prolific and respected posters here start talking
about "the consensus is...", "deprecated on this list"
and make statements like "GG is irredeemably broken"
there are people who will accept that info at the
posters' word.

And when someone challenges the anti-GG claim, the
issue get polarized and choosing one side or the
other (still without much reliable evidence) becomes
an action of support.

Finally there is a significant amount of anti-Google
sentiment in the world and it can difficult to tell
if someone's motivation is purely against obnoxious
posts or is also motivated in part by a desire to
oppose Google. You yourself I think have publicly
criticized Google and even advocated using an alternate
search engine, yes? That kind of political decision
is something each person should decide for themself
and should not be subject to external pressure, at
least not here.

So your claim that everyone rejecting GG posts is
doing so based solely on their own personal experience
is not convincing to me.

Now none of that proves that GG posts *aren't* largely
crap. But I do object to hyping up the claim.

And I still question the need to killfile GG posts
based on:
* My experience that it is not hard to ignore or quickly
skip over crap posts and neither are they very numerous
so killfiling does not provide much incremental benefit.
* Killfiling is detrimental in that it loses the non-
crap posts as well. (The OP of this thread is one
example and I recall another example a week or two
ago as well.)
* My belief that is wrong on some deep level to reject
people based on statistics for a group they belong to,
especially on a list that makes a big point of being
inclusive.

>[...]

> You of course are free to make whatever arrangements to filter spam and
> use Google Groups as you like, but you equally must respect other
> people's right to control their own inbox by filtering away GG posters.

Right. And I've never said anything contrary. I am
not promoting GG and am happy to see helpful suggestions
on how to access this group by other means.

My responses in this and other threads have pretty much
been limited to correcting bad or very biased information
and while I'm at it, expressing my opinion that killfiling
based on a source (and one as widely used as GG) is not
a good way to address the problem as expanded on above.

[Mark Lawrence]

On 15/11/2012 21:29, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:

All I'll say is that when I read something on gmane via Thunderbird on
Windows Vista on any of the 25 Python mailing lists that I subscribe to,
I don't want to read the double spaced crap that comes from G$.

I hence perceive a problem.

1) G$ are too interested in making huge profits and so have no interest
in people who have to read the garbage that originates from them.
2) People who are too bone idle to get hold of any other mechanism that
doesn't put the double spaced garbage in.

Any and all answers to this dilemma are welcome.

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[Grant Edwards]

On 2012-11-15, Mark Lawrence <bream...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/11/2012 21:29, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> All I'll say is that when I read something on gmane via Thunderbird on
> Windows Vista on any of the 25 Python mailing lists that I subscribe to,
> I don't want to read the double spaced crap that comes from G$.

Doesn't Thunderbird have a scoring, blocking, or blacklisting facility
to allow you to hide/ignore those posts? I have slrn hide all
postings with headers that contain a line that matches this
(case-insensitve) RE:

Message-ID: .*googlegroups.com

> I hence perceive a problem.

Indeed.

> 1) G$ are too interested in making huge profits and so have no interest
> in people who have to read the garbage that originates from them.

While I generally find Google to be mostly non-evil[1] (at least when
compared to most other behmouth companies), their attitude regarding
Google Groups is notably awful.

> 2) People who are too bone idle to get hold of any other mechanism that
> doesn't put the double spaced garbage in.

Or it could be they're too ignorant to know there's a problem. Trying
to explain the problem and the available options is, IME, pointless.

Even if you can drag them along to the point where they understand
there's a problem and they can do something about it, as long as
people read and respond to their posts, they've got no motivation to
do so.

> Any and all answers to this dilemma are welcome.

I just gave up and now ignore posts from Google Groups. I've decided
there's no point it trying to change either Google Groups itself or
the people who use it. I occasionally see most/all of posts from GG
when they get quoted in followups, and never have I had occasion to
wish I hadn't missed a GG posting.

[1] OK, so I'm am annoyed with them after my Google phone updated to
Android 4.2 this afternoon and the lock-screen clock is now
_physically_painful_ to look at. However, I'm convinced that's
not evil -- just a complete and utter lack of visual design
ability.

--
Grant

[rusi]

On Nov 16, 2:29 am, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> But of course, our genius doesn't keep any records
> and the cases where he is wrong don't make as much
> impression on his memory.  Further, he doesn't bother
> to check the headers on the non-crap posts.  Even a
> junior-high science student could see the problems
> with this methodology.

Reminds of the difference between pop and educated statistics:
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/10/20/nearly-everyone-is-above-average/

On the whole I agree with rurpy.
One small addition: GG allows spam posts to be marked as spam.

This feature costs a few seconds and can help everyone (if a few more
GG users would use it)

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, rusi <rusto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One small addition: GG allows spam posts to be marked as spam.
>
> This feature costs a few seconds and can help everyone (if a few more
> GG users would use it)

And Gmail lets you do the exact same thing, but I almost never need to
do it, because the filter is already pretty good. Though every once in
a while I go check the spambox and there's usually something that
technically shouldn't have been called spam (but even then, I've never
regretted missing it). And I'm sure you can get it with a newsreader
too, though I've not looked.

Spam filtering is nothing unique.

ChrisA

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spam filtering is nothing unique.
>

(Don't get me wrong though, that doesn't stop it from being a good
thing. It's just not a reason to use GG above all else.)

ChrisA

[Duncan Booth]

Grant Edwards <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> [1] OK, so I'm am annoyed with them after my Google phone updated to
> Android 4.2 this afternoon and the lock-screen clock is now
> _physically_painful_ to look at. However, I'm convinced that's
> not evil -- just a complete and utter lack of visual design
> ability.

You can select any other lock screen widget as the default, so why not
download some more widgets from Play and choose something different. e.g.
"Beautiful Clock Widgets" or "HD Widgets" but there are probably others.

To change the default lockscreen widget swipe left from the lockscreen
until you get to a page with only a '+', add the new widget there, then
long press that widget and drag it to be the rightmost page.

Then you should be sorted just so long as you don't have any friends with
December birthdays.

--
Duncan Booth http://kupuguy.blogspot.com