Google Groups and netiquette

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Gunnar Hjalmarsson, May 15, 2005.

  1. It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which leads
    people to not quote anything when replying to a message. Maybe those who
    dislike when people reply without providing context should better call
    Google's attention to the problem rather than blaming GG posters...

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, May 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    > It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which

    leads
    > people to not quote anything when replying to a message. Maybe those

    who
    > dislike when people reply without providing context should better

    call
    > Google's attention to the problem rather than blaming GG posters...


    OK, so I finally tried it (please excuse the mailinator.com email
    address, rather than the usual .invalid address I use).

    To be able to quote context, one needs to click on Options -> Reply,
    rather than the fancy Reply link below the message which opens an empty
    textbox.

    I will complain to Google Groups regarding this, but I am not sure how
    seriously they will take it. They are a private company after all, and
    the more they align the behavior of their interface with the
    expectations of the clueless, the more users they will have.

    So, at this point, wholesale killfiling of all Google Groups posts is
    beginning to look like an attractive option.

    Sinan.

    PS: This is my first and final post from Google Groups, in case you
    were wondering :)
     
    A. Sinan Unur, May 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    Guest

    A. Sinan Unur wrote:
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    > > It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which

    > leads
    > > people to not quote anything when replying to a message. Maybe

    those
    > who
    > > dislike when people reply without providing context should better

    > call
    > > Google's attention to the problem rather than blaming GG posters...

    >
    > OK, so I finally tried it (please excuse the mailinator.com email
    > address, rather than the usual .invalid address I use).
    >
    > To be able to quote context, one needs to click on Options -> Reply,
    > rather than the fancy Reply link below the message which opens an

    empty
    > textbox.
    >
    > I will complain to Google Groups regarding this, but I am not sure

    how
    > seriously they will take it. They are a private company after all,

    and
    > the more they align the behavior of their interface with the
    > expectations of the clueless, the more users they will have.
    >
    > So, at this point, wholesale killfiling of all Google Groups posts is
    > beginning to look like an attractive option.
    >
    > Sinan.
    >
    > PS: This is my first and final post from Google Groups, in case you
    > were wondering :)


    This was brought up in the past few months as a solution for us Google
    posters, which you could have seen if you had first "Googled" the
    topic. The senior citizens (by experience and ability, not age) of the
    group may wish to killfile us, forcing those who want the most high
    quality help to use other usenet servers, but I find that I can learn
    from almost any post, and I do not find the volume to be too great to
    sift through. I hope Google cleans up its act. I think they have
    fixed part of the formatting problem at least. There was a free news
    server that is no longer free since April. I don't know if there are
    any other free ones besides Google at this point.

    wana
     
    , May 16, 2005
    #3
  4. A. Sinan Unur wrote:
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >> It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which
    >> leads people to not quote anything when replying to a message.
    >> Maybe those who dislike when people reply without providing context
    >> should better call Google's attention to the problem rather than
    >> blaming GG posters...

    >
    > I will complain to Google Groups regarding this,


    Good!

    > wholesale killfiling of all Google Groups posts is beginning to
    > look like an attractive option.


    Well, M$ encourages top posting, Google encourages no context at all...
    It's not obvious to me that killfiling is the best way to deal with this
    kind of dilemma.

    We won't likely convince those giants that they'd better stay out of
    Usenet. Accordingly, we'll probably have to endure postings from both
    Newsreaders and web based forums.

    Maybe it's time to revise the posting guidelines. You *can* deal with
    postings without context by simply viewing messages by thread, right?

    After all, all these complaints about people's non-compliance with the
    format guidelines aren't very fruitful.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, May 16, 2005
    #4
  5. On Mon, 16 May 2005, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:

    > After all, all these complaints about people's non-compliance with
    > the format guidelines aren't very fruitful.


    I'm fed up of these discussions over basic usenet netiquette, which
    are entirely off-topic for this group.

    Please go to the news.admin.* hierarchy for such discussions, meantime
    I strongly recommend simply killfiling the offenders and NOT filling
    the group up with complaints about them.

    I'm not in the least interested in helping Googroups to re-form usenet
    in its own image, I must say.
     
    Alan J. Flavell, May 16, 2005
    #5
  6. wrote:
    > There was a free news server that is no longer free since April.


    Assuming you mean news.individual.net, 10 € per year is almost "free",
    isn't it?

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, May 16, 2005
    #6
  7. Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote in
    news::

    > A. Sinan Unur wrote:
    >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>> It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which
    >>> leads people to not quote anything when replying to a message.
    >>> Maybe those who dislike when people reply without providing context
    >>> should better call Google's attention to the problem rather than
    >>> blaming GG posters...

    >>
    >> I will complain to Google Groups regarding this,

    >
    > Good!


    Thank you. I already wrote them a nice (I think) note suggesting they
    could improve the interface. We'll see if anything happens.

    >> wholesale killfiling of all Google Groups posts is beginning to
    >> look like an attractive option.

    >
    > Well, M$ encourages top posting, Google encourages no context at
    > all... It's not obvious to me that killfiling is the best way to deal
    > with this kind of dilemma.


    I don't know what *the* solution is, but this option is looking like a
    convenient one for me.

    > We won't likely convince those giants that they'd better stay out of
    > Usenet. Accordingly, we'll probably have to endure postings from both
    > Newsreaders and web based forums.


    Possibly. However, if the posters from Google Groups got in on the act,
    and complained that this misfeature of their interface is making it
    harder for them to get good answers, and therefore would rather switch
    to a real newsreader, that should have an impact.

    > Maybe it's time to revise the posting guidelines. You *can* deal with
    > postings without context by simply viewing messages by thread, right?


    That requires an exponential increase in the time it would take to
    figure out what is being discussed, who is right, who suggested what etc
    as the thread gets longer and longer. Why should you or I bear that
    cost?

    The only revision to the posting guidelines might be a note specific to
    Google Groups users, but then it would require an extra burden on Tad to
    keep up with whatever changes Google might make to their interface in
    the future. The rule is simple, whatever software you are using, the
    burden is on you to figure out how to compose an effective follow-up.

    > After all, all these complaints about people's non-compliance with the
    > format guidelines aren't very fruitful.


    If people did not get away with non-compliance, then they would be
    forced to learn the particular quirks of the software *they chose* to
    post.

    Just like teaching how to use the operating system they chose to use is
    not our job, teaching them how to use their newsreader, or catering to
    their ignorance cannot be our job either.

    Sinan

    --
    A. Sinan Unur <>
    (reverse each component and remove .invalid for email address)

    comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
    http://mail.augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
     
    A. Sinan Unur, May 16, 2005
    #7
  8. On 2005-05-15, Gunnar Hjalmarsson scribbled these
    curious markings:
    > Assuming you mean news.individual.net, 10 € per year is almost "free",
    > isn't it?


    I'm assuming that you mean Euro dollars because it's just garbage on my
    console.

    And how much would it cost to have that money sent from the US?

    Besides, there's also http://dotsrc.org/usenet/ .

    Best Regards,
    Christopher Nehren
    --
    I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded
    pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson
    If you ask the wrong questions, you get answers like "42" and "God".
    Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly.
     
    Christopher Nehren, May 16, 2005
    #8
  9. A. Sinan Unur wrote:
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >> We won't likely convince those giants that they'd better stay out of
    >> Usenet. Accordingly, we'll probably have to endure postings from both
    >> Newsreaders and web based forums.

    >
    > Possibly. However, if the posters from Google Groups got in on the act,
    > and complained that this misfeature of their interface is making it
    > harder for them to get good answers, and therefore would rather switch
    > to a real newsreader, that should have an impact.


    Yep. But do you really believe it will happen? I don't.

    > If people did not get away with non-compliance, then they would be
    > forced to learn the particular quirks of the software *they chose* to
    > post.


    Most GG posters don't know about any choice with respect to newsgroup
    software. They just found a bunch of discussion groups on the web, just
    like Yahoo! Groups or MSN Groups.

    > Just like teaching how to use the operating system they chose to use is
    > not our job, teaching them how to use their newsreader, or catering to
    > their ignorance cannot be our job either.


    Basically I agree with you, Sinan, it's just that I feel kind of overcome.

    And yes, Alan, this subject is indeed off topic in this group. It's just
    that we are quite a few posters here who are trying to enforce the
    netiquette, so the impact of e.g. Google is affecting the usefulness of
    clpmisc, whether we like it or not.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, May 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Christopher Nehren wrote:
    > On 2005-05-15, Gunnar Hjalmarsson scribbled these curious markings:
    >>
    >> Assuming you mean news.individual.net, 10 € per year is almost "free",
    >> isn't it?

    >
    > I'm assuming that you mean Euro dollars


    Euro dollars? :) No. Euro. Period.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, May 16, 2005
    #10
  11. Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote in
    news::

    > Most GG posters don't know about any choice with respect to newsgroup
    > software. They just found a bunch of discussion groups on the web,
    > just like Yahoo! Groups or MSN Groups.


    The sad part is, the original Google Groups help had a link to:

    <URL: http://groups-beta.google.com/googlegroups/posting_style.html#summarize>

    The new version of that document is at:

    <URL: http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250>

    The differences between the two versions of the

    "Summarize what you're following up"

    heading are telling.

    If there were an easy way to link to the new version, I would put it in my sig,
    but they don't have anchors for each heading any more.

    > And yes, Alan, this subject is indeed off topic in this group.


    Agreed. Sorry for adding to the noise. I am going to shut up now.

    Sinan
    --
    A. Sinan Unur <>
    (reverse each component and remove .invalid for email address)

    comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
    http://mail.augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
     
    A. Sinan Unur, May 16, 2005
    #11
  12. A. Sinan Unur <> wrote:
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >> It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which

    > leads
    >> people to not quote anything when replying to a message. Maybe those

    > who
    >> dislike when people reply without providing context should better

    > call
    >> Google's attention to the problem rather than blaming GG posters...



    Yo Gunnar! What's up with the long lines? Sure got uglified
    by the word-wrapper...


    > I will complain to Google Groups regarding this, but I am not sure how
    > seriously they will take it.



    Me either, but I plan to send them a link to my very recent post
    in another thread[1] too.


    > They are a private company after all, and
    > the more they align the behavior of their interface with the
    > expectations of the clueless, the more users they will have.



    But the less benefit their users will derive because Usenet
    will become less and less valuable as the answerers simply
    leave in frustration.

    Or, maybe they've gone Microsoftian on us, and plan to make
    everybody use GG for Usenet by shear weight and volume, instead
    of letting them use Real Newsreaders (with no ad revenues to Google).

    What they do with posts displayed on their website is their business.
    Mangle code, snip context, insert smily faces, whatever.

    When Google *posts* they are sending stuff to thousands of computers
    around the world, not just their own computers.

    Google is acting most irresponsibly with regards to writing to Usenet.


    > So, at this point, wholesale killfiling of all Google Groups posts is
    > beginning to look like an attractive option.


    See [1]. :)


    > PS: This is my first and final post from Google Groups, in case you
    > were wondering :)



    Phew! I was worried that we had lost you to the dark side!




    [1] Message-Id: <>

    --
    Tad McClellan SGML consulting
    Perl programming
    Fort Worth, Texas
     
    Tad McClellan, May 16, 2005
    #12
  13. Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:
    > A. Sinan Unur wrote:
    >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>> It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which
    >>> leads people to not quote anything when replying to a message.


    >> wholesale killfiling of all Google Groups posts is beginning to
    >> look like an attractive option.


    > It's not obvious to me that killfiling is the best way to deal with this
    > kind of dilemma.


    > Accordingly, we'll probably have to endure postings from both
    > Newsreaders and web based forums.



    We are free to choose what to read/ignore/respond to.

    We can choose to not endure them too.

    Killfiling is nothing more than automating that.

    Programmers automate repetive functions, that's what we do. :)


    > Maybe it's time to revise the posting guidelines.



    To be serious it needs to be:

    1) in followup to a Posting Guidelines automated posting,
    so everyone can find the proposed change for discussion.

    2) in the form of proposed wording that can be cut/pasted
    into the guidelines after discussion and consensus.

    So please do that if you'd like to take a shot at it.


    > You *can* deal with
    > postings without context by simply viewing messages by thread, right?



    Wrong.

    The 1st message may not have arrived when the followup arrives.

    The 1st message may *never* arrive.

    The 1st message may have already arrived and "rolled off" of the
    news server's queue making it no longer available.

    There are *reasons* why the commonly accepted posting style has
    become commonly accepted. They have survived a Darwinian "survival
    of the fittest", what works stays, what doesn't work has atrophied
    away.


    > After all, all these complaints about people's non-compliance with the
    > format guidelines aren't very fruitful.



    Right, and I choose to take action to avoid seeing them.

    I regret throwing some babies out with that bath water, but
    the CBA for _me_ indicates wholesale killfiling.

    Maybe I'll take it back out *after* GG starts acting responsibly
    again.


    --
    Tad McClellan SGML consulting
    Perl programming
    Fort Worth, Texas
     
    Tad McClellan, May 16, 2005
    #13
  14. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    Guest

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > There was a free news server that is no longer free since April.

    >
    > Assuming you mean news.individual.net, 10 € per year is almost

    "free",
    > isn't it?
    >
    > --
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    > Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl


    Yeah, I am going to get one of those pre-paid, throw away credit cards
    to sign up with. I won't to use my check card online.

    One problem with Google Groups is that you can sign up anonymously so
    anyone can post anything. You get a free e-mail account with Yahoo and
    use it for Google Groups. That's what I did.

    wana
     
    , May 16, 2005
    #14
  15. Tad McClellan wrote:
    > A. Sinan Unur <> wrote:
    >>Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>>It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which

    >>leads
    >>>people to not quote anything when replying to a message. Maybe those

    >>who
    >>>dislike when people reply without providing context should better

    >>call
    >>>Google's attention to the problem rather than blaming GG posters...

    >
    > Yo Gunnar! What's up with the long lines? Sure got uglified
    > by the word-wrapper...


    My reader is set to wrap lines at 72 chars, i.e. well within the 80
    chars recommendation.

    I'm also using "format=flowed". If more readers recognized that format
    we'd see less of such 'uglification'.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, May 16, 2005
    #15
  16. Tad McClellan <> wrote in
    news::

    > A. Sinan Unur <> wrote:
    >> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:


    >>> It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which

    >> leads
    >>> people to not quote anything when replying to a message. Maybe those

    >> who


    <snipped rest of formatting disaster>

    > Yo Gunnar! What's up with the long lines? Sure got uglified
    > by the word-wrapper...


    Not Gunnar's fault. It must have something to do with GG, because this only
    happened with my GG response to Gunnar's post.


    >> PS: This is my first and final post from Google Groups, in case you
    >> were wondering :)

    >
    > Phew! I was worried that we had lost you to the dark side!


    Nah, just had to see what it was like to post from GG.

    Dunno how people work with that stuff.

    Sinan.
     
    A. Sinan Unur, May 16, 2005
    #16
  17. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    Guest

    >> Assuming you mean news.individual.net, 10 [Euros] per year is almost
    >> "free", isn't it?



    Christopher Nehren <> wrote:
    > And how much would it cost to have that money sent from the US?


    If you pay by VISA I would hope it should cost you an admin fee of
    no more than a couple of dollars (USD). OandA.com suggests 2% for an
    international VISA card transaction, so the total annual subscription
    cost to you could be around 12-13 USD.

    Chris
     
    , May 17, 2005
    #17
  18. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    Larry Guest

    > Yeah, I am going to get one of those pre-paid, throw away credit
    cards
    > to sign up with.


    Wow that, is cool... where do you get a credit card like that?

    Actually, PayPal would be a better solution than that, if they accept
    that.
     
    Larry, May 17, 2005
    #18
  19. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    Guest

    Awwwww... you don't *want* to?

    Who cares? Do you think anyone really cares to hear you say you will
    ignore all posts from Google? Just do it and don't waste everyone's
    freaking time saying you're going to do it.

    Or do you think you're so great that a bunch of people are going to
    stop using Google Groups because they want to make sure you can read
    their post and just might gift them a moment of your time to answer?
     
    , May 18, 2005
    #19
  20. wrote:
    > Awwwww... you don't *want* to?


    Who is "you" and what the heck are you talking about?
    Please provide context when you are replying to a Usenet posting.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, May 18, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. anonymous
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,667
    Francisco Padron
    May 8, 2005
  2. John Charlois

    Roedy please respect the netiquette

    John Charlois, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    1,521
    Darryl L. Pierce
    Jun 14, 2004
  3. Andrew Thompson

    FAQ - references to Google/Google Groups

    Andrew Thompson, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    703
    Andrew Thompson
    Jun 20, 2005
  4. Michael Sparks
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    407
    Michael Sparks
    Oct 20, 2004
  5. Kenny McCormack
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    647
    Mark L Pappin
    Jan 17, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page