Should we crosspost to both alt.english.usage & alt.usage.english

[Frank Jones]

Just curious what the etiquette is since both groups have
the same purpose.


BACKGROUND BELOW:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:19:01 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013 08:08:52 +0000 (UTC), Steve Crook <st...@mixmin.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 1 May 2013 02:37:25 +0000 (UTC), Frank Jones wrote in
>>Message-Id: <klpv54$vhg$1...@news.mixmin.net>:
>>
>>> Now this is odd indeed!
>>>
>>> The newsgroup "alt.english.usage" is an historic, common,
>>> and very active newsgroup (for both British & American
>>> English questions); yet, it appears not on the Mixmin server
>>> and also not in the file you referred, to wit:
>>> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/newsgroups
>>>
>>> Why would this very common and very active and historically
>>> well respected newsgroup be totally missing?
>>>
>>> NOTE: Alt.usage.english is _not_ the same newsgroup; nor
>>> is it as popular; nor is it as well respected.
>>
>>Hi Frank,
>>
>>My apologies, I didn't appreciate there were two groups with such common
>>names:
>>alt.usage.english
>>alt.english.usage
>>
>>If the group alt.english.usage isn't on the ISC list then it's one of
>>many groups that was created without going through the formal group
>>creation process. This usually happens when a group begins life on a
>>single newsserver and slowly spreads as other servers are asked to carry
>>it.
>
> That is a common suggestion as to how it happened. No one seems to know
> for certain.
>
> alt.usage.english and alt.english.usage go back some time.
> alt.usage.english was created in 1991.
>
> From the AUE website:
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_a.shtml#altusageenglishandaltenglishusage
>
> <quote>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> alt.usage.english and alt.english.usage
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> We are sometimes asked why there are two newsgroups with similar
> names. We don't know; it may have been an error. We are also asked what
> the difference is between the two groups. We are not aware of any
> official policy differences; participants of both groups report that
> alt.usage.english has significantly more traffic. Beyond that, you
> can make your own judgements about atmosphere, attitudes,
> personalities of current contributors, etc.
>
> A historical note: one of the messages from 1991 about the formation of
> a.u.e can be found at:
> http://alt-usage-english.org/alt.usage.english-1.txt
> <endquote>

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Frank Jones
<fgj...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Just curious what the etiquette is since both groups have
>the same purpose.
>

Many people do crosspost to both groups. This is strongly recommended
when someone wants to ask the same question or make the same point in
both groups.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[Peter Young]

On 1 May 2013 "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Frank Jones
> <fgj...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>Just curious what the etiquette is since both groups have
>>the same purpose.
>>
> Many people do crosspost to both groups. This is strongly recommended
> when someone wants to ask the same question or make the same point in
> both groups.

And am I really the only person who gets annoyed by cross-posts from
groups I don't read? I for one limit my replies to one or both of the
English groups.

Peter. (a.k.a.grumpy old man of Cheltenham).

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Bill McCray]

On 5/1/2013 10:44 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Frank Jones
> <fgj...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Just curious what the etiquette is since both groups have
>> the same purpose.
>>
> Many people do crosspost to both groups. This is strongly recommended
> when someone wants to ask the same question or make the same point in
> both groups.

I follow only a.e.u. The amount of traffic in a.u.e is just too high or
was the last time I looked at it. I spend too much time in front of the
computer already.

Bill in Kentucky

[Fran Jones]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:44:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> Many people do crosspost to both groups. This is strongly recommended

Have folks ever tried to simply consolidate onto one group?
Or am I clueless in that it's been asked before?

[Anton Shepelev]

[Replying to alt.english.usage only]

Fran Jones:

> > Many people do crosspost to both groups. This is
> > strongly recommended
>
> Have folks ever tried to simply consolidate onto
> one group? Or am I clueless in that it's been
> asked before?

Considering that the relative post rates of AEU and
AUE are about one to seven, I suggest that you go to
AUE every time you feel a temptation to crosspost.
An additional 14% of potential contributors is not
worth it, and it is even lower than that, because
some of them frequent both groups (but do not cross-
post often).

To me, AEU is the smaller and cozier place, and ev-
ery thread it shares with the other group just seems
to destroy this charm.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

[Robin Bignall]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:35:26 +0000 (UTC), Frank Jones
<fgj...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Well, you didn't crosspost this post, so I saw it twice when once would
have been enough. Also, the netiquette in both groups is to post at the
bottom of the quoted material, not at the top.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It's probably been thought about. I suspect there would be opposition
from those who prefer alt.english.usage because it has less traffic than
a.u.e. They would not want the combined traffic of both a.u.e and a.e.u.

[fabzorba]

On 2 May, 08:55, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:53:32 +0000 (UTC), Fran Jones
>

> <fgjo...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:44:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> >> Many people do crosspost to both groups. This is strongly recommended
>
> >Have folks ever tried to simply consolidate onto one group?
> >Or am I clueless in that it's been asked before?
>
> It's probably been thought about. I suspect there would be opposition
> from those who prefer alt.english.usage because it has less traffic than
> a.u.e. They would not want the combined traffic of both a.u.e and a.e.u.
>

Yes, Peter, it HAS indeed "been thought about", and here, from
archives are some thought of my own:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.english.usage/browse_thread/thread/35bc5e48f0ef07c0/0be6a9e1f404a3a6?hl=en-GB&lnk=gst&q=abzorba+alt.english#0be6a9e1f404a3a6

I suggested then that alt.english could better serve as a Q A for
English beginners, leaving alt.usage for the more specialized work. Of
course, it was completely ignored then, and now it is not even
remembered. There has been no movement for ANY kind or rationalization
of the aburdly bloated ranks of news groups, and what's worse, the
champions of the status quo, including the resident old hats to be
found here seem to revere it. It's a dinosaur, and, unable to adapt,
will become extinct. I doubt that we will see it last a decade longer.
And then thou shalt weep and tear thy garments, and sit in ashes, and
wear sack cloth, and wail "Why didst we not heed Fabzorba whenst was
time and space to do so?" and I will only say "I toldst thee thus, and
so it has transpired."

[Daniel James]

In article <242c15455...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Peter Young
wrote:

> And am I really the only person who gets annoyed by cross-posts from
> groups I don't read?

No.

I read only AEU, for example. AUE has much more traffic and I wouldn't
have time to read it all. I gather that AEU has a somewhat lighter and
friendlier tone ... and that seems to be borne out by what I see that
has been cross-posted.

The AUE guys seem OK, though ... its the occasional visitors from
sci.lang who really spoil the party.

> I for one limit my replies to one or both of the
> English groups.

That's trickier. When replying to a post that has appeared in more than
one group I always reply to all relevant groups. In the case of AEU and
AUE I might wish that the post had not been made in both groups, but by
the time it has been seen in both groups the answer will be of interest
in both and will properly form part of the conversation in both. I
won't add AUE to my replies, but neither will I remove it.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Daniel James]

In article <s923o811lemmf0vop...@4ax.com>, Robin Bignall
wrote:

> Well, you didn't crosspost this post, so I saw it twice when once
> would have been enough.

Good point ... one should not normally crosspost, but should almost
always crosspost rather than multiposting ...

.. but I think this may be a rare example of a situation in which it
is more informative to multipost, as the populations of the two groups
may answer differently.

Maybe a crosspost, with a plea to responders to identify the group in
which they are responding, would be better ... but that's not foolproof
as many would ignore the request and those with clever newsreaders
would see the post only once anyway (probably in AEU because it comes
alphabetically before AUE).

Cheers,
Daniel.

[fabzorba]

On May 2, 8:55 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:53:32 +0000 (UTC), Fran Jones
>

> <fgjo...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:44:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> >> Many people do crosspost to both groups. This is strongly recommended
>
> >Have folks ever tried to simply consolidate onto one group?
> >Or am I clueless in that it's been asked before?
>
> It's probably been thought about. I suspect there would be opposition
> from those who prefer alt.english.usage because it has less traffic than
> a.u.e. They would not want the combined traffic of both a.u.e and a.e.u.

Yes, Peter, it HAS indeed "been thought about", and here, from
archives are some thought of my own:

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_thread/thread/35bc5e48f0ef07c0/c3e80ddac822cea0?hl=en-GB&lnk=gst&q=BEHOLD!+Gather%2C+a+site#c3e80ddac822cea0

I suggested then that alt.english might better serve as a Q A for

English beginners, leaving alt.usage for the more specialized work. Of
course, it was completely ignored then, and now it is not even
remembered. There has been no movement for ANY kind or rationalization
of the aburdly bloated ranks of news groups, and what's worse, the
champions of the status quo, including the resident old hats to be

found here, seem to revere it. It's a dinosaur, and, unable to adapt,

will become extinct. I doubt that we will see it last a decade
longer.

And then shalt thou weep and rend thy garments, and sitteth thou in
ashes, and wearst thou sack cloth, and wailest thou: "Wherefore didst
not we heed fair and kind Fabzorba whenst there was time and space for
so to do?" and I will only say "I toldest thou thus and thou shutted
then thine ears with thine hands, and verily thereafter have these
things indeed come to pass. Whenceforth now mayest thou of my loin
cloth presently eat."

[Anton Shepelev]

fabzorba:

> I suggested then that alt.english could better
> serve as a Q A for English beginners, leaving
> alt.usage for the more specialized work.

> [...]

It is only meet that each group shall serve a spe-
cial purposse, but it is none the less true that a
group's name shall that purpose reflect, while your
suggestion, if executed, shall only increase the
confusion if the current group names be kept.

alt.english.usage is the better name because its
components are ordered properly, from large to
small: the group is about English, focusing specifi-
cally on its usage. The other group you propose
could be called alt.english.qa, or ~.beginners.
Then your suggestion would make more sense, although
I personally wouldn't like it anyway because the
current alt.usage.english is too crowdy and there
would be no second group sharing its subject yet
with a smaller audience, like the current alt.
english.usage.

Secondly, it is easier to differentiate groups by
their subjects than by the depth wherewith the same
subject is treated. What one thinks a simple ques-
tion may be not so, or may eventually grow in a
full-fledged debate.

> Of course, it was completely ignored then, and now
> it is not even remembered. There has been no
> movement for ANY kind or rationalization of the
> aburdly bloated ranks of news groups

> [...]

It's not quite true:

http://tinyurl.com/cg6o3oa

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 04:17:40 -0700 (PDT), fabzorba
<myles....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 2, 8:55 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:53:32 +0000 (UTC), Fran Jones
>>
>> <fgjo...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 01 May 2013 15:44:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>
>> >> Many people do crosspost to both groups. This is strongly recommended
>>
>> >Have folks ever tried to simply consolidate onto one group?
>> >Or am I clueless in that it's been asked before?
>>
>> It's probably been thought about. I suspect there would be opposition
>> from those who prefer alt.english.usage because it has less traffic than
>> a.u.e. They would not want the combined traffic of both a.u.e and a.e.u.
>
>Yes, Peter, it HAS indeed "been thought about", and here, from
>archives are some thought of my own:
>
>https://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_thread/thread/35bc5e48f0ef07c0/c3e80ddac822cea0?hl=en-GB&lnk=gst&q=BEHOLD!+Gather%2C+a+site#c3e80ddac822cea0
>
>I suggested then that alt.english might better serve as a Q A for
>English beginners, leaving alt.usage for the more specialized work. Of
>course, it was completely ignored then, and now it is not even
>remembered.

One of the reasons that suggestion might have been ignored is the sheer
impracticality of implementing it.

How is the first-time English-beginner to know which newsgroup is
appropriate for beginner-type questions?

Such a person will find one of the newsgroups and post to it.

Another point is that the number of knowledgeable people who will read a
newsgroup devoted mainly to answering beginners' questions is likely to
be much less than those whole will read a newsgroup where there are
interesting discussions as well as answers to elementary questions.

I will occasionally contribute to threads started by beginners asking
questions. However, as someone who doesn't teach English I would not
subscribe to a newsgroup that was dedicated solely to answering
questions from learners. Even English teachers might hesitate to
subscribe to a newsgroup dedicated to learners' questions.

[CDB]

Besides the objections you mention, there would be the problem of
attendance in Zorba's proposed teaching group. In the two present
groups, there are many who are not interested in explaining the language
to learners, but who might rouse themselves to correct a seriously
misleading answer from an ignorant or mischievous poster.

It occcurs to me that, according to the rule of hierarchy in group
names, AUE may be well-designated. The practice of other languages than
English comes up quite often, even though it most often does so in
relation to our own usage.

[Anton Shepelev]

CDB:

> Besides the objections you mention, there would be
> the problem of attendance in Zorba's proposed
> teaching group. In the two present groups, there
> are many who are not interested in explaining the

> language to learners, but who might rouse them-

> selves to correct a seriously misleading answer
> from an ignorant or mischievous poster.

Agree. Anybody can occasionally want to relax or
evince courtesy and answer a beginner's post in be-
tween contributing to more interesring and compli-
cated discussions, but having to attend a special
group for that will be too much like a duty and few
will do it.

> It occcurs to me that, according to the rule of

> hierarchy in group names, AUE may be well-desig-
> nated. The practice of other languages than En-

> glish comes up quite often, even though it most
> often does so in relation to our own usage.

Your evidence is correct. I have found only three
active groups with usage as the middle component,
all of them in the alt hierarchy: english, german,
and spanish , and there are five active groups end-
ing in "usage", AEU boasting the highest traffic.

But when searching for a group, I think the only
natural procedure can be to look for its subject
(English, cars, cats, caterpillars, catapults)
rather than for modifiers (usage, repair, stroking,
breeding, reconstruction), which are all secondary
and should be considered after the subject is found.
For example, I'd much prefer a list of:

alt.enslish.learners
alt.enslish.neologism
alt.english.usage
to, say:
alt.learning .enlgish
alt.neologism.english
alt.usage .english

Am I alone in this?

[Jenny Telia]

On 01/05/2013 16:35, Frank Jones wrote:
> Just curious what the etiquette is since both groups have
> the same purpose.
>
>

My suggestion - eliminate the naffer of the two.

I suggest an all-out NewsGroups war - alt.english.usage vs.
alt.usage.english. The winner keeps all.

Off you go, and may the best team win.

[CDB]

Mileages may vary according to newsclient. I type "english" into the
search box and all groups with "english" in their titles come up.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2013-05-02 11:04:58 +0000, Daniel James said:

> In article <242c15455...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Peter Young
> wrote:
>> And am I really the only person who gets annoyed by cross-posts from
>> groups I don't read?
>
> No.
>
> I read only AEU, for example. AUE has much more traffic and I wouldn't
> have time to read it all. I gather that AEU has a somewhat lighter and
> friendlier tone ... and that seems to be borne out by what I see that
> has been cross-posted.
>
> The AUE guys seem OK, though ... its the occasional visitors from
> sci.lang who really spoil the party.

I think you're probably thinking of one occasional visitor in particular.

>> I for one limit my replies to one or both of the
>> English groups.
>
> That's trickier. When replying to a post that has appeared in more than
> one group I always reply to all relevant groups. In the case of AEU and
> AUE I might wish that the post had not been made in both groups, but by
> the time it has been seen in both groups the answer will be of interest
> in both and will properly form part of the conversation in both. I
> won't add AUE to my replies, but neither will I remove it.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
>

--
athel

[Anton Shepelev]

CDB:

> > But when searching for a group, I think the only
> > natural procedure can be to look for its subject
> > (English, cars, cats, caterpillars, catapults)
> > rather than for modifiers (usage, repair,
> > stroking, breeding, reconstruction), which are
> > all secondary and should be considered after the
> > subject is found. For example, I'd much prefer
> > a list of:
> >
> > alt.enslish.learners
> > alt.enslish.neologism
> > alt.english.usage
> >
> > to, say:
> >
> > alt.learning .enlgish
> > alt.neologism.english
> > alt.usage .english
> >
> > Am I alone in this?
>
> Mileages may vary according to newsclient. I type
> "english" into the search box and all groups with
> "english" in their titles come up.

Well, with my client it's the same, but that does
not excuse bad naming or incorrect hierarchical
classification.

[Robert Bannister]

Since nobody reads newsgroups apart from crazy people like us, and since
almost all of were introduced to newsgroups by a friend who gave us the
secret words (like alt, usage, english), I can't see the problem. I
agree I could never imagine on my own a sequence like de, etc, sprache,
deutsch, but that is half the fun - it's like joining the Freemasons.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 2/05/13 10:58 PM, CDB wrote:

> Mileages may vary according to newsclient. I type "english" into the
> search box and all groups with "english" in their titles come up.

I am puzzled by the order they appear in. Using Thunderbird,
alt.usage.english is near the top, a long way in front of
alt.english.usage, so clearly it's not alphabetical. Order of importance?
--
Robert Bannister

[Anton Shepelev]

Robert Bannister:

> I am puzzled by the order they appear in. Using
> Thunderbird, alt.usage.english is near the top, a
> long way in front of alt.english.usage, so clearly
> it's not alphabetical. Order of importance?

:-)

Surely not. More likely it's just the mere number
of posts your server has for the group, which is
roughly proportional to the traffic.

[Anton Shepelev]

Robert Bannister:

> Since nobody reads newsgroups apart from crazy

> people like us, [...]

Alas, and ironically it were the modern tendecies on
the Internet that led me to Usenet. Light, simple,
banner- and bloat-free forums and websites using
mostly plain HTML are almost gone. New tendencies
incude the removal of full replies from notification
e-mails, so as to force the user to come to the site
and log in just to read new responses, and the turn-
ing of specialized community sites into full-blown
social networks with "likes", "avatars", "friends",
"walls", e.t.c.

I felt that those features sucked my blood and found
Usenet, which was as clean and simple as it used to
be thirty years before, like a breath of fresh air.

> ... and since almost all of were introduced to

> newsgroups by a friend who gave us the secret
> words (like alt, usage, english), I can't see the
> problem. I agree I could never imagine on my own a
> sequence like de, etc, sprache, deutsch, but that

> is half the fun -- it's like joining the Freema-
> sons.

Those are all easily findable once one is into
Usenet, but discovering this network and learning to
use an NNTP client to access it in our age of web
interfaces is for many indeed tantamount to entering
a secret society!

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 08:19:24 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>I am puzzled by the order they appear in. Using Thunderbird,

Thunderbird lists groups in the order in which you subscribed to them.
You can drag and drop them within the list to change the order.

�R

[Robert Bannister]

I don't think it can be quite like that. If I enter nothing in the
search box, I get a purely alphabetical list, but when I enter "alt",
for some reason alt.music.boyz-to-men comes in front of alt.2600 - I
have never subscribed or even looked at these.

http://s110.photobucket.com/user/rhban/media/BitsandBobs/NgpSubscribe.png.html

Curses. Curses. A thousand curses.
Now, just to confound me, when I enter "english" instead of "alt", they
come out in alphabetical order. I don't what happened the time I tried
it before that produced the result that prompted my remark.
--
Robert Bannister
Were computers invented to drive us insane?

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 08:42:19 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>I don't think it can be quite like that. If I enter nothing in the
>search box, I get a purely alphabetical list, but when I enter "alt",
>for some reason alt.music.boyz-to-men comes in front of alt.2600 - I
>have never subscribed or even looked at these.

Oh, I misunderstood the context. The list in the subscription dialog is
*supposed* to be sorted alphabetically. Judging from the responses to
bugs I've reported in that dialog, I don't think anybody really knows
what's actually going on in that code.

ŹR // Failing is not just for failures, it's \\ users.bestweb.net/~notr
for everyone. Failures just have more experience. \\ iamlistener.com

[Whiskers]

On 2013-05-05, Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 08:42:19 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>I don't think it can be quite like that. If I enter nothing in the
>>search box, I get a purely alphabetical list, but when I enter "alt",
>>for some reason alt.music.boyz-to-men comes in front of alt.2600 - I
>>have never subscribed or even looked at these.
>
> Oh, I misunderstood the context. The list in the subscription dialog is
> *supposed* to be sorted alphabetically. Judging from the responses to
> bugs I've reported in that dialog, I don't think anybody really knows
> what's actually going on in that code.

The locally stored .newsrc file (or equivalent if your newsreader has a
different structure) probably has newly-added groups appended to the end of
the list; the list of active groups downloaded to create the initial
.newsrc file may have been in order of group creation on that server,
unless someone had deliberately sorted it differently. Your local .newsrc
file will be even more chaotic if it is derived from more than one
news-server.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[micky]

Right. AFAIC, aue has too much traffic and aeu not enough. It's been
that way for 15 years at least.

If we took the union of aue and aeu, there would be even more traffic.

If we took the intersection, there would be even less, far too little.

I corsspost only when I'm in a hurry to get an answer, or when I think
I have some valuable piece of hitherto unknown information I want to
share.

[micky]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:34:48 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> Even English teachers might hesitate to
>subscribe to a newsgroup dedicated to learners' questions.

That would be a busman's holiday.

[Nick from England]

On 1 May, 15:35, Frank Jones <fgjo...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Just curious what the etiquette is since both groups have
> the same purpose.

Well, Frank, last time I looked the poor little group had very little
traffic so I guess we could crosspost the occasional li'l tidbit jest
to be neighborly!

--
NfE