U
usenet
(Note: This message is crossposted to the following newsgroups, as
these groups are affected by the subject bot: comp.lang.perl.misc,
perl.beginners, comp.lang.perl.modules, perl.dbi.users,
perl.beginners.cgi, alt.perl)
Greetings. As many of you are doubtless aware, I recently wrote and
deployed a usenet 'bot which identifies multiposted messages. After
manually flagging such messages for some time, it occurred to me that I
could let Perl do the work for me, and laziness took over.
FIRST OF ALL, I would like to apologize to the usenet community for
having done this unilaterally. I had genuinely not anticipated that
many folks would object or even care about this - it was a very minor
project for me to save me a bit of trouble now and then. I now know
that I should have posted an RFC before deploying my bot, and I would
have done so had I realized the level of interest it would generate.
If I've angered or annoyed anyone, I do apologize. I had no such
intent.
This topic is presently being discussed in a number of threads:
http://tinyurl.com/rdedx, http://tinyurl.com/m2e2r, and
http://tinyurl.com/oubbn (and possibly others), and the topic is
certainly OT to the first two threads (and the third thread is postured
as an attack article). Multiple threads are an ineffective way to
discuss a topic, and I hope that by opening this thread, I can
consolidate (rather than contribute) to the mess. I don't want to
re-hash these threads here; I hope interested folks will read those
messages but continue the discussions here (with good quoting, of
course, so others will be able to follow along).
I have read comments from many respected posters which were both
supportive and critical of my bot. In both cases, however, there was
often a strong sentiment that the bot message was too long and too
harsh.
I had a lot of temporary introductory text in the first couple of
messages that was never intended to be part of the regular bot
messages. That, however, was a mistake (as it led folks to believe that
I really intended to post such a long reply to every multipost). I
should have posted the messages without that additional explanatory
verbiage and perhaps included that additional information in a reply.
HOWEVER, reading many comments has led me to believe that it may not be
a good idea to include very much more than a very basic reply and a
link for more info. I argued against this idea (because I thought the
reply would not be very effective, as novice OPs don't often appear
to follow links) but I have reconsidered my opinion (due to what seems
to be a rough consensus, and because I realize the various strengths of
the other position).
I will therefore modify the bot to something per the suggestions that
John & Sinan made in http://tinyurl.com/oubbn. I have also changed the
bot's handle to my personally-named domain (so it's not anonymous).
It's a different handle than I'm posting under now (for folks who
may wish to killfile the bot but not killfile me). Those who have
already killfiled the bot will need to do so again (sorry) - you may
killfile (e-mail address removed) if you wish to killfile the bot.
Opinions have been expressed in roughly four categories:
1 - The whole idea of a bot sucks
2 - The idea is OK, but the implementation (auto-message) sucks
3 - Rock on
4 - Indifference (posted messages without expressing an opinion)
So far, most opinion seems to fall in the second or third category
(though opinions of the first category have been somewhat more vocal).
I believe I have taken measures to address many of the concerns of the
second category. As the discussion develops, if it seems the group
consensus does generally oppose the idea, I have no problem with
shutting it down and I will readily do so.
these groups are affected by the subject bot: comp.lang.perl.misc,
perl.beginners, comp.lang.perl.modules, perl.dbi.users,
perl.beginners.cgi, alt.perl)
Greetings. As many of you are doubtless aware, I recently wrote and
deployed a usenet 'bot which identifies multiposted messages. After
manually flagging such messages for some time, it occurred to me that I
could let Perl do the work for me, and laziness took over.
FIRST OF ALL, I would like to apologize to the usenet community for
having done this unilaterally. I had genuinely not anticipated that
many folks would object or even care about this - it was a very minor
project for me to save me a bit of trouble now and then. I now know
that I should have posted an RFC before deploying my bot, and I would
have done so had I realized the level of interest it would generate.
If I've angered or annoyed anyone, I do apologize. I had no such
intent.
This topic is presently being discussed in a number of threads:
http://tinyurl.com/rdedx, http://tinyurl.com/m2e2r, and
http://tinyurl.com/oubbn (and possibly others), and the topic is
certainly OT to the first two threads (and the third thread is postured
as an attack article). Multiple threads are an ineffective way to
discuss a topic, and I hope that by opening this thread, I can
consolidate (rather than contribute) to the mess. I don't want to
re-hash these threads here; I hope interested folks will read those
messages but continue the discussions here (with good quoting, of
course, so others will be able to follow along).
I have read comments from many respected posters which were both
supportive and critical of my bot. In both cases, however, there was
often a strong sentiment that the bot message was too long and too
harsh.
I had a lot of temporary introductory text in the first couple of
messages that was never intended to be part of the regular bot
messages. That, however, was a mistake (as it led folks to believe that
I really intended to post such a long reply to every multipost). I
should have posted the messages without that additional explanatory
verbiage and perhaps included that additional information in a reply.
HOWEVER, reading many comments has led me to believe that it may not be
a good idea to include very much more than a very basic reply and a
link for more info. I argued against this idea (because I thought the
reply would not be very effective, as novice OPs don't often appear
to follow links) but I have reconsidered my opinion (due to what seems
to be a rough consensus, and because I realize the various strengths of
the other position).
I will therefore modify the bot to something per the suggestions that
John & Sinan made in http://tinyurl.com/oubbn. I have also changed the
bot's handle to my personally-named domain (so it's not anonymous).
It's a different handle than I'm posting under now (for folks who
may wish to killfile the bot but not killfile me). Those who have
already killfiled the bot will need to do so again (sorry) - you may
killfile (e-mail address removed) if you wish to killfile the bot.
Opinions have been expressed in roughly four categories:
1 - The whole idea of a bot sucks
2 - The idea is OK, but the implementation (auto-message) sucks
3 - Rock on
4 - Indifference (posted messages without expressing an opinion)
So far, most opinion seems to fall in the second or third category
(though opinions of the first category have been somewhat more vocal).
I believe I have taken measures to address many of the concerns of the
second category. As the discussion develops, if it seems the group
consensus does generally oppose the idea, I have no problem with
shutting it down and I will readily do so.