Netiquette aspect
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
obviously to avoid that the same thing is said repeatedly.[1] That
aspect of the netiquette could be better adhered to, giving us a less
noisy and more to the point clpmisc.
[1] I know that there may be delays in propagating a message to other
Usenet servers, but I have a feeling that unnecessary repetitions are
only in exceptional cases explained by such delays.
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
Matt Garrish
"Gunnar Hjalmarsson" <nor...@gunnar.cc> wrote in message
news:4318qoF...@individual.net...
> The netiquette bids us to read the whole thread before posting a reply,
> obviously to avoid that the same thing is said repeatedly.[1] That aspect
> of the netiquette could be better adhered to, giving us a less noisy and
> more to the point clpmisc.
>
What was this born of? You may get four or five identical answers to a
question because four or five people started typing them up at the same
time, but I can't say that I see all that many multi-branch threads where
the exact same advice is being repeated over and over in each branch.
Matt
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>>The netiquette bids us to read the whole thread before posting a reply,
>>obviously to avoid that the same thing is said repeatedly.[1] That aspect
>>of the netiquette could be better adhered to, giving us a less noisy and
>>more to the point clpmisc.
>
> What was this born of?
It happens quite often IMO.
> You may get four or five identical answers to a
> question because four or five people started typing them up at the same
> time,
Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about.
> but I can't say that I see all that many multi-branch threads where
> the exact same advice is being repeated over and over in each branch.
Well, sometimes it's repeated in the same branch. ;-)
Maybe I'll point it out next time I notice.
Matt Garrish
That would probably be more helpful. I won't pretend I follow every thread
closely, but I haven't seen a lot of useless repetition. The google-posters
are the most annoying recent development, in my opinion, and there have been
a rash of multi-posters, but I haven't seen a lot of noise in the sense
you're suggesting.
Matt
Alan J. Flavell
> I won't pretend I follow every thread
> closely, but I haven't seen a lot of useless repetition.
If I can try to make a positive suggestion, resisting the temptation
to just gripe: my own practice, which I'd recommend to anyone else, is
to sort the new postings into thread order with the newest first (PINE
regards that as "Reverse" ordering), and then work my way down each
thread, from the newest new posting to the oldest new posting, if you
see what I mean.
That way, I'm less likely to respond to a posting which has already
been "overtaken by events". h t h...
> The google-posters are the most annoying recent development, in my
> opinion,
I don't generally see those, as they're below my kill/score threshold;
if they say anything worth reading, I'm leaving it to those who have
more patience than I have to post a followup, then, if it looks
interesting, I'll go back and read the original posting, and maybe
even add the original poster to my g-g exceptions list. I don't know
what that makes me - but frankly, life's too short to read everything
on usenet, nor even to read everything on the groups that I've
"subscribed" to.
However, I get the impression there are far more followups which are
rebuking g-g posters for bad netiquette, than there are which are
responding to their substantive content. That itself carries a
message, IMNSHO. I also get the impression that, paradoxically, they
are the least likely to use g-g to research previous postings on their
topic.
cheers
Matt Garrish
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.06...@ppepc62.ph.gla.ac.uk...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Matt Garrish wrote:
>
>> I won't pretend I follow every thread
>> closely, but I haven't seen a lot of useless repetition.
>
> If I can try to make a positive suggestion, resisting the temptation
> to just gripe: my own practice, which I'd recommend to anyone else, is
> to sort the new postings into thread order with the newest first (PINE
> regards that as "Reverse" ordering), and then work my way down each
> thread, from the newest new posting to the oldest new posting, if you
> see what I mean.
>
> That way, I'm less likely to respond to a posting which has already
> been "overtaken by events". h t h...
>
Perhaps that's why I'm not feeling the same frustration as Gunnar. Though I
loathe to admit it, I use OE on my Windows box to read usenet, and tend to
do exactly as you say (expand the tree and work inward). I also tend to
start with people I know will give good advice, and skip any branch started
by robic0 or Purl Gurl, for example, because I can usually guess why those
get extended.
>> The google-posters are the most annoying recent development, in my
>> opinion,
>
> I don't generally see those, as they're below my kill/score threshold;
> if they say anything worth reading, I'm leaving it to those who have
> more patience than I have to post a followup, then, if it looks
> interesting, I'll go back and read the original posting, and maybe
> even add the original poster to my g-g exceptions list. I don't know
> what that makes me - but frankly, life's too short to read everything
> on usenet, nor even to read everything on the groups that I've
> "subscribed" to.
>
> However, I get the impression there are far more followups which are
> rebuking g-g posters for bad netiquette, than there are which are
> responding to their substantive content. That itself carries a
> message, IMNSHO. I also get the impression that, paradoxically, they
> are the least likely to use g-g to research previous postings on their
> topic.
>
Yes, Google has brought the message-board mentality to usenet by trying to
cloak the nature of usenet in their own interface. The only thing worse is
the attitude of those it has lured to post. The "I'll figure out this board
etiquette later, give me my answer now" response that's become prevalent
lately is what irks me the most. I could follow the threads these people
start, but I refuse to make that effort when they only want the answer to
their question and will never be seen again until the next time they demand
an answer.
Matt
John Bokma
> Matt Garrish wrote:
>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>>>The netiquette bids us to read the whole thread before posting a
>>>reply, obviously to avoid that the same thing is said repeatedly.[1]
>>>That aspect of the netiquette could be better adhered to, giving us a
>>>less noisy and more to the point clpmisc.
>>
>> What was this born of?
>
> It happens quite often IMO.
>
>> You may get four or five identical answers to a
>> question because four or five people started typing them up at the
>> same time,
>
> Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about.
It even might happen not at the same time, I can have a reply open for 20-
30 minutes (or more), and been busy with other things, and then post it.
>> but I can't say that I see all that many multi-branch threads where
>> the exact same advice is being repeated over and over in each branch.
>
> Well, sometimes it's repeated in the same branch. ;-)
Remember that some people kill file everybody they have a grudge against.
Also, some people kill file all Google Groups replies.
I often mark all messages as read when I am busy, so I might end up with
just a part of the thread. And no, I am not going to reload the whole
thread :-D.
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
>
>>>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>>>>The netiquette bids us to read the whole thread before posting a
>>>>reply, obviously to avoid that the same thing is said repeatedly.[1]
>>>>That aspect of the netiquette could be better adhered to, giving us a
>>>>less noisy and more to the point clpmisc.
<snip>
> Remember that some people kill file everybody they have a grudge against.
> Also, some people kill file all Google Groups replies.
Precisesly. So, maybe killfiling is incompatible with following the
netiquette if you aren't just lurking?
> I often mark all messages as read when I am busy, so I might end up with
> just a part of the thread.
Apparently tools for reading Usenet work differently. I have set my
reader (Thunderbird) to display the whole thread as long as there are
unread messages in that thread.
> And no, I am not going to reload the whole thread :-D.
Then you should probably think twice before jumping in, since there is
no way you can tell whether you will add any value if you post.
John, your comments are examples of what I was after with my original
post. Thanks for helping me elaborating it. ;-)
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>>>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>>>>>The netiquette bids us to read the whole thread before posting a
>>>>>reply, obviously to avoid that the same thing is said
>>>>>repeatedly.[1] That aspect of the netiquette could be better
>>>>>adhered to, giving us a less noisy and more to the point clpmisc.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Remember that some people kill file everybody they have a grudge
>> against. Also, some people kill file all Google Groups replies.
>
> Precisesly. So, maybe killfiling is incompatible with following the
> netiquette if you aren't just lurking?
Good question. I always considered killfiling people because you don't
agree with them (especially when they are right) quite a PBCAK.
>> I often mark all messages as read when I am busy, so I might end up
>> with just a part of the thread.
>
> Apparently tools for reading Usenet work differently. I have set my
> reader (Thunderbird) to display the whole thread as long as there are
> unread messages in that thread.
I think TB can do it as well. I prefer to no longer see messages I've
marked as read. If they are important I can mark them as sticky. So when I
leave a group, only the sticky messages stay.
>> And no, I am not going to reload the whole thread :-D.
>
> Then you should probably think twice before jumping in, since there is
> no way you can tell whether you will add any value if you post.
Yup, I agree, and I do that more and more nowadays (thinking twice before
posting). OTOH, I guess that a lot (and I mean a lot) of posts on Usenet
are just repeating the same stuff over, and over again.
> John, your comments are examples of what I was after with my original
> post. Thanks for helping me elaborating it. ;-)
You're welcome.
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>>>And no, I am not going to reload the whole thread :-D.
>>
>>Then you should probably think twice before jumping in, since there is
>>no way you can tell whether you will add any value if you post.
>
> Yup, I agree, and I do that more and more nowadays (thinking twice before
> posting).
Well, no need to extrapolate my remark like that. ;-) I was just trying
to show that some ways to handle the participation in the group may be
incompatible with good netiquette.
> OTOH, I guess that a lot (and I mean a lot) of posts on Usenet
> are just repeating the same stuff over, and over again.
Unfortunately true. The reasons being lazy dogs, people who don't care
about the netiquette, and Google.
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
> Unfortunately true. The reasons being lazy dogs, people who don't care
> about the netiquette, and Google.
And very important: people repeating the same/similar answer(s) over and
over again (me included)
Tad McClellan
> And very important: people repeating the same/similar answer(s) over and
> over again
people repeating the same/similar answer(s) over and over again
> (me included)
me too.
SCNR :-)
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
ta...@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas