If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
groups, for a reason. I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the message flow. I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and should be banned. What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:-) Colin D. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Colin D wrote:
What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:-) If it makes sense to cross post then cross post. OTOH think hard if it really makes sense. Most things don't. Nick -- --------------------------------------- "Digital the new ice fishing" --------------------------------------- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
"Colin D" wrote in message ... As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four groups, for a reason. I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the message flow. I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and should be banned. What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:-) Colin D. I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply, then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get to the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't know if it will. This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are agents of the CIA, or some such thing. In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his list, so that is what I do. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
Colin D wrote:
As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four groups, for a reason. I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the message flow. I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and should be banned. What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:-) Charter don't matter; those who wanna multi or x-post will do so and if you ask 'em to stop, some will become righteous and do it all the more. Others will X-post just to be irksome to those who haven't learned to filter or kill threads. Setting followups is logical, but also can set some folks off. Cross posting is infinitely better than multi posting in my book, but both are abused. The thing that may most delimit garbage is totally ignoring X-posted garbage, or at least trimming out groups that have zero relationship to photos. Now, as to putting Subject Lines in all caps...... s. -- John McWilliams |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
William Graham wrote:
What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:-) I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply, then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get to the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't know if it will. This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are agents of the CIA, or some such thing. In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his list, so that is what I do. William: If you thought of the post in terms of not so much as going to the original sender, but to lots of people who read each of the groups, perhaps that'd motivate you to examine where it's going. It'd help a lot of people if you did. The OP should be following each of the groups to which he posts; therefor trimming out extraneous groups is highly valued by ..... the rest of the group who now don't have to read about politics in the photo groups, for example. cordially, john mcwilliams |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
"William Graham" wrote in message ... "Colin D" wrote in message ... As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four groups, for a reason. I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the message flow. I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and should be banned. What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:-) Colin D. I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply, then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get to the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't know if it will. This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are agents of the CIA, or some such thing. In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his list, so that is what I do. There is very good reason to not post your email address to Usenet. Especially if you use a permanent long term email address. I generally keep my email addresses for many years. The junk unsolicited emails and Spam that are generated by just one Usenet posting are not worth it when one simply want to make a comment, and/or participate in a Usenet discussion, with absolutely zero requirement of personal email exchanges... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
Nick wrote on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:18:01 -0500:
NZ In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Colin D NZ wrote: ?? ?? What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? ?? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except ?? this one, of course {:-) ?? NZ If it makes sense to cross post then cross post. OTOH NZ think hard if it really makes sense. Most things don't. For myself, if I notice something is cross-posted, I ignore it. I wish it were possible to define a rule in OE that would do that automatically but such is not the case. More's the pity, I don't think I'd miss much! James Silverton. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
"Colin D" wrote in message ... As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four groups, for a reason. And since you have such strong views, what do you think about SHOUTING? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
Colin D wrote:
What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:-) Crosspost if necessary; it usually isn't, but sometimes it makes sense. Choose the smallest possible number of groups. Crossposting to try to reach more people doesn't make sense; people *do* read more than one group. Multi-posting is stupid, bad, and should never be done. It's spam. -- Jeremy | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
Colin D wrote:
As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four groups, for a reason. You have just demonstrated that cross-posting is *not* intrinsically wrong. It can, however, be abused: cross-posting to newsgroups where the message is inappropriate is an abuse and is worse than simply posting an off topic message to a single newsgroup. Multi-posting is inherently an abuse itself, whether the message is on topic or not. Multi-posting should be avoided. (And, note that topicality and netiquette are on topic in any newsgroup. Cross-posting to a small selection of related newsgroups is acceptable for such topics. Hence this thread is quite appropriate.) I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or more of the above groups. True, and it is an annoying abuse. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a post in one group does not appear in the others. Broadening the base of discussion is *precisely* the purpose of cross-posting. It is not annoying *in* *itself*, and is a very reasonable thing to do _when_ _appropriate_. If one is participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the message flow. I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and should be banned. Wrong, and absolutely illogical! Multi-posting *is* banned! People do it anyway (rarely out of any intent to be annoying, but instead simply because they don't know the difference). Cross-posting is beneficial when used appropriately; like everything else in the world it can be abused, and that abuse *is* banned... but people do it anyway. Granted that a great deal of cross-posting abuse is in fact done with the very purpose of annoying others, but still even with cross-posting abuse it is mostly done in ignorance. What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:-) The group charter is irrelevant. Netiquette is do not ever multi-post and do not ever post (or worse, cross-post) original articles to newsgroups where the message (topic) is not appropriate. Replying to multi-posted articles is hardly a problem, though I suppose one reasonable response would be to cross-post the response as appropriate. Replying to cross-posted articles confuses many people; in particular there is a problem with setting Followup-To headers. While it is *clearly* an abuse to start an inappropriately cross-posted thread, once it has been started if the thread is actually of any value at all there is no way to narrow the distribution without potentially cutting off some readers who are following the thread. In particular it is offensive to silently add a Followup-To header without announcing it in the text of the message, but even when announced it is poor form to assume that others should subscribe to the particular newsgroup selected by the sender. Trying to "ban" abuse is a waste of time and effort. The only recourse is effective use of filters/scoring/killfiles by individual users. Note that on some newsgroups it *would* make sense to just filter out everything that is cross-posted, though it might on occasion delete a useful article. But generally that is overkill because it will delete some useful articles. Use of a "score" system, where a number of characteristics are heuristically evaluated to form a decision that passes or fails any given message is much preferred, and particularly so when it is easy to manually manipulate it to add particular authors and threads. Another nice feature is killing any thread that is cross-posted to certain specific newsgroups (for example, to any political discussion newsgroup). -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses | Joseph Chamberlain, DDS | Digital SLR Cameras | 128 | November 20th 05 01:01 AM |
Master Mason Handbook | Doug Robbins | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | July 15th 04 03:33 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | Photographing People | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | John | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 7th 04 05:33 AM |