Netiquette aspect

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. 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.

    [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
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Jan 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Gunnar Hjalmarsson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Matt Garrish, Jan 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.

    > 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.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Jan 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Gunnar Hjalmarsson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >
    >> 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.
    >


    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
     
    Matt Garrish, Jan 16, 2006
    #4
  5. 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...

    > 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
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Jan 16, 2006
    #5
  6. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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
     
    Matt Garrish, Jan 16, 2006
    #6
  7. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    John Bokma Guest

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:

    > 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 :)
     
    John Bokma, Jan 16, 2006
    #7
  8. 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?

    > 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. ;-)

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Jan 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    John Bokma Guest

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
     
    John Bokma, Jan 17, 2006
    #9
  10. John Bokma wrote:
    > Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    >>John Bokma 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.

    --
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson
    Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
     
    Gunnar Hjalmarsson, Jan 18, 2006
    #10
  11. Gunnar Hjalmarsson

    John Bokma Guest

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson <> wrote:

    > 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)

    --
    John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
    Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
    I ploink googlegroups.com :)
     
    John Bokma, Jan 18, 2006
    #11
  12. John Bokma <> wrote:


    > 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
    Perl programming
    Fort Worth, Texas
     
    Tad McClellan, Jan 19, 2006
    #12
    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. John Charlois

    Roedy please respect the netiquette

    John Charlois, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    1,502
    Darryl L. Pierce
    Jun 14, 2004
  2. Michael Sparks
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    396
    Michael Sparks
    Oct 20, 2004
  3. Peter Corbett

    A quick c.l.p netiquette question

    Peter Corbett, Sep 29, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    425
    Steve Holden
    Sep 30, 2005
  4. Kenny McCormack
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    640
    Mark L Pappin
    Jan 17, 2010
  5. Alessio Stalla
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    555
    Arne Vajhøj
    Oct 26, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page