Off-topic threads

[Chris Croughton]

I notice the real reason for not posting "off-topic" here is that the
result will be a long thread on whether the matter is off-topic or not
-- caused by the very people who claim that they don't want to see
off-topic discussions posting off-topic messages complaining about the
lack of topicality! Messages saying *PLONK* are also off-topic, but the
complainers sem to post those a lot as well.

If all of the people who currently complain about lack of topicality
stopped posting, the result would be a marked decrease in 'noise'. If
they wish, they could send email to a person posting off-topic
explaining their error, pointing them to the FAQ or whatever, and if
they really want they could then fight those battles as much as they
like out of the group.

Or someone could RFD a group c.l.c.topicality to discuss those things.

(Making a post just to say "*PLONK*" or "You're in my killfile" is
extremely childinsh and does nothing to improve the level of discussion.
I thought this was supposed to be a group for intelligent people, not
schoolchildren going "Na-na-na-na-na-can't-hear-you". If you want to
use a killfile to remove posts from people whose posts you don't wish to
receive, please do so -- I do so myself, in many groups, it keeps my
bloodpressure down -- but keep it to yourself.)

Chris C

 

[jacob navia]

I notice the real reason for not posting "off-topic" here is that the
result will be a long thread on whether the matter is off-topic or not
-- caused by the very people who claim that they don't want to see
off-topic discussions posting off-topic messages complaining about the
lack of topicality! Messages saying *PLONK* are also off-topic, but the
complainers sem to post those a lot as well.

If all of the people who currently complain about lack of topicality
stopped posting, the result would be a marked decrease in 'noise'. If
they wish, they could send email to a person posting off-topic
explaining their error, pointing them to the FAQ or whatever, and if
they really want they could then fight those battles as much as they
like out of the group.

Or someone could RFD a group c.l.c.topicality to discuss those things.

(Making a post just to say "*PLONK*" or "You're in my killfile" is
extremely childinsh and does nothing to improve the level of discussion.
I thought this was supposed to be a group for intelligent people, not
schoolchildren going "Na-na-na-na-na-can't-hear-you". If you want to
use a killfile to remove posts from people whose posts you don't wish to
receive, please do so -- I do so myself, in many groups, it keeps my
bloodpressure down -- but keep it to yourself.)

Chris C

I agree with you.

Blatantly off topic threads (World catastrophes, religious
stuff, etc) should be banned, but not C topics that go
beyond the letter of the standard.

 

[Michael Mair]

I notice the real reason for not posting "off-topic" here is that the
result will be a long thread on whether the matter is off-topic or not
-- caused by the very people who claim that they don't want to see
off-topic discussions posting off-topic messages complaining about the
lack of topicality! Messages saying *PLONK* are also off-topic, but the
complainers sem to post those a lot as well.

If all of the people who currently complain about lack of topicality
stopped posting, the result would be a marked decrease in 'noise'. If
they wish, they could send email to a person posting off-topic
explaining their error, pointing them to the FAQ or whatever, and if
they really want they could then fight those battles as much as they
like out of the group.

Most of the time, people get a "you may try it in another group, maybe
...." along with the off-topic notice, so that there is actual payload
along with the noise.
Telling someone that his request is off-topic serves the purpose that
the OP knows that his request is off-topic and other participants know
that the OP now knows. Sometimes, I get the impression that many people
do not look at other posts downthread as they have to add an identical
response even after days. IMO, this habit adds to the traffic much more
unnecessarily.

Or someone could RFD a group c.l.c.topicality to discuss those things.

Topicality discussions usually are not off-topic in the respective
newsgroup.

(Making a post just to say "*PLONK*" or "You're in my killfile" is
extremely childinsh and does nothing to improve the level of discussion.
I thought this was supposed to be a group for intelligent people, not
schoolchildren going "Na-na-na-na-na-can't-hear-you". If you want to
use a killfile to remove posts from people whose posts you don't wish to
receive, please do so -- I do so myself, in many groups, it keeps my
bloodpressure down -- but keep it to yourself.)

It depends. Round here, I openly plonked only in three cases -- in two
cases accompanied by a reply which may have helped.
However, I can very well do without plonking openly and will in future
refrain from it round here.


Cheers
Michael

 

[alex]

Well said

I bet Mike Wahler loved this one
*smirk*

 

[Chris Croughton]

I agree with you.

Blatantly off topic threads (World catastrophes, religious
stuff, etc) should be banned, but not C topics that go
beyond the letter of the standard.

Sorry, but you seem to be agreeing with something I didn't write. I
have little opinion on what should be on-topic here, if the general
feeling is that c.l.c is for only ISO Standard C discussions that's fine
by me. My objection is simply to the interminable threads which seem to
devolve into ad hominem attacks whenever someone posts something
off-topic, there are better and more mature ways of dealing with such
things.

(And yes, I was aware of the irony of posting a criticism on the subject
of being off-topic, where that post itself was off-topic. Recursion:
see recursion ad infinitum...)

Chris C

 

[Chris Croughton]

Most of the time, people get a "you may try it in another group, maybe
..." along with the off-topic notice, so that there is actual payload
along with the noise.

Unfortunately it seems that lately the requests haven't been anywhere
near as polite, and have spawned long threads in response.

Telling someone that his request is off-topic serves the purpose that
the OP knows that his request is off-topic and other participants know
that the OP now knows. Sometimes, I get the impression that many people
do not look at other posts downthread as they have to add an identical
response even after days. IMO, this habit adds to the traffic much more
unnecessarily.

Indeed. There are times when that happens because Usenet propagation is
still not perfect, of course, but it shouldn't happen all that often.
It should be rare, not the norm, that more than two people respond with
the same comment.

Topicality discussions usually are not off-topic in the respective
newsgroup.

If they were only constructive discussions about which subjects were on
topic it wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, the topic seems to be
pretty well defined -- anything to do with Standard C (or any of the
standards) is on-topic, everything else is off-topic. There are a few
borderline cases where there is a question whether the standard actually
covers the area, but there's really not much else to say on the subject.

It depends. Round here, I openly plonked only in three cases -- in two
cases accompanied by a reply which may have helped.
However, I can very well do without plonking openly and will in future
refrain from it round here.

My preference is to use the format The Times (of London) uses: "This
correspondence is now closed", or words to that effect (i.e. "I've said
all I'm going to say on this subject"). Saying that you have killed a
subject makes sense (to stop others who might otherwise expect to engage
you in more conversation on that subject), to announce that a person has
been blocked seems only to encourage protests (and for the real trolls
morphing addresses to try to get round the blocks). The only time I
announce that someone is in my killfile (and that seldom) is if someone
queries why I didn't respond: "Sorry, I didn't see that, he's in my
killfile".

Chris C

 

[Keith Thompson]

If all of the people who currently complain about lack of topicality
stopped posting, the result would be a marked decrease in 'noise'.

[...]

I seriously doubt that. I strongly suspect that the result would be
an increase in off-topic posts, since comp.lang.c would become the
place to go for answers to any questions that are even vaguely related
to C. The newsgroup would become less useful for its primary purpose,
discussing the C programming language as defined by the ANSI/ISO
standard(s) (and by K&R1 and earlier documents for the occasional
historical discussion).

I understand that something like this happened to comp.lang.c++ some
years ago, and it took a long time for that newsgroup to recover. I
don't read comp.lang.c++ regularly; perhaps someone who does (or did
at the time) can provide more details.

The ideal response to an off-topic post is a single brief followup
pointing out that it's off-topic. If possible, it's also nice to
suggest what a more appropriate newsgroup might be, but we can't
always know that. Since Usenet is asynchronous, we often get a number
of such followups, which can seem like we're ganging up on the
original poster, even though we're not. Long topicality threads often
result when the original poster complains that the rest of us are
being rude; such complaints are not always entirely unjustified, but
they're rarely constructive.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I notice the real reason for not posting "off-topic" here is that the
result will be a long thread on whether the matter is off-topic or not

You noticed /this/? Then your noticement skills need honing...

Messages saying *PLONK* are also off-topic, but the
complainers sem to post those a lot as well.

Actually, they're not offtopic as far as I'm aware.

If all of the people who currently complain about lack of topicality
stopped posting, the result would be a marked decrease in 'noise'.

Dream on. If nobody redirected the offtopic posts to the right place, the
group would fill with zillions of posts about Windows, C++, unix, C#, shell
script, motorcycles, feminism and a horde of other topics.

If they wish, they could send email to a person posting off-topic
explaining their error,

1) Many posters sensibly use fake emails to avoid spam
2) Sending unsolicited mail is generally unwelcome and may be illegal.
3) In some cases the responder would then have to do a considerable amount
of extra work, swapping to his email client, typing in some email address
etc. To do something that one keypress can do in his news client.

pointing them to the FAQ or whatever, and if
they really want they could then fight those battles as much as they
like out of the group.

No. If its done secretly via email, nobody gets the message. It should be
fought right here, so that other casual visitors can be clear about the
topic.

Or someone could RFD a group c.l.c.topicality to discuss those things.

Topicality is definitionally topical in any group.

(Making a post just to say "*PLONK*" or "You're in my killfile" is
extremely childinsh

I disagree. Often its important to let the other person know they've gone
too far. Silently killfiling them can leave them with the idea they've
'won' and for the sort of people you killfile, its generally pretty
important for them to be made aware they've not.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Sorry, but you seem to be agreeing with something I didn't write.

Its not entirely surprising - jacob is often chided here for posting
offtopically, and he has a strong view about it.

(And yes, I was aware of the irony of posting a criticism on the subject
of being off-topic, where that post itself was off-topic.

But its not offtopic. There's no irony.

 

[alex]

Your thread is off topic

Please use another newsgroup

I'd recommend comp.offtopic.discussion

 

[Peter Shaggy Haywood]

Trolling square Chris Croughton was jivin' on Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:51:26
+0000 in comp.lang.c.
Off-topic threads's a bad trip! Dig it!

I notice the real reason for not posting "off-topic" here is that the

[Blah, blah, blah...]

Please, people, do not feed the trolls.

--

Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig!

http://alphalink.com.au/~phaywood/
"Ain't I'm a dog?" - Ronny Self, Ain't I'm a Dog, written by G. Sherry & W. Walker.
I know it's not "technically correct" English; but since when was rock & roll "technically correct"?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Your thread is off topic

Please use another newsgroup

By convention, discussions of topicality are considered topical.

 

[alex]

yes but this is a strictly C only ng isnt it?
this thread has nothing to do with C so its off topic.

 

[Jack Klein]

I notice the real reason for not posting "off-topic" here is that the
result will be a long thread on whether the matter is off-topic or not
-- caused by the very people who claim that they don't want to see
off-topic discussions posting off-topic messages complaining about the
lack of topicality! Messages saying *PLONK* are also off-topic, but the
complainers sem to post those a lot as well.

You are wrong about the results. Perhaps I've been around usenet
longer than you, although I am not nearly as old a hand as some.

Another reply alluded to the problems that comp.lang.c++ has some
years ago, but the poster said he was not a regular reader of that
group and hoped someone else could supply the details.

I was reading and posting in comp.lang.c++ 7 or 8 years ago when it
was completely flooded with Visual C++/Windows API posts. The C++
language was in the final stages of having its original ANSI/ISO
International Standard issued, yet the posts about the language proper
constituted less than 25% of the total, actually around 10% IIRC.

It finally took a concerted effort by a group of dedicated regulars to
clean up the group, to become the useful resource that it is today.

Over the years, other groups that I enjoyed have been totally
destroyed, never to recover, by the clueless, the rude, the ignorant,
and the arrogant.

If all of the people who currently complain about lack of topicality
stopped posting, the result would be a marked decrease in 'noise'. If
they wish, they could send email to a person posting off-topic
explaining their error, pointing them to the FAQ or whatever, and if
they really want they could then fight those battles as much as they
like out of the group.

Some people feel that they own the Internet and usenet, and notions
such as topicality or even good manners are not part of their mind
set. It often takes repeated applications of the hammer to pound the
nail all the way home.

Or someone could RFD a group c.l.c.topicality to discuss those things.

(Making a post just to say "*PLONK*" or "You're in my killfile" is
extremely childinsh and does nothing to improve the level of discussion.
I thought this was supposed to be a group for intelligent people, not
schoolchildren going "Na-na-na-na-na-can't-hear-you". If you want to
use a killfile to remove posts from people whose posts you don't wish to
receive, please do so -- I do so myself, in many groups, it keeps my
bloodpressure down -- but keep it to yourself.)

Actually, plonking by long tradition is topical in any group, and it
does server some purpose. Figuring out the potential benefits is left
as an exercise for the reader.

Chris C

There are some technical groups, comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ among
them, that provide excellent free advice from some of the most
knowledgeable programmers in their respective languages in the world.
These groups are incredibly valuable resources because of those
knowledgeable regulars.

One of the first casualties of a group gone out of control is usually
the loss of many of the best of those regulars. When most of the
content is off-topic drivel not pertinent to the subject they are
willing to share their expertise on, they leave. Even when groups are
cleaned up, some never return.

And, of course, your own post is itself off-topic. While discussions
of topicality are topical, discussions about what to do about
off-topic posts really are not. And it will spawn a thread of its
own.

Fortunately, you are not really going to change the behavior of most
of the regulars here. I say fortunately, because in the end you would
not like the result if you did. I've seen it too many times before.

 

[Jack Klein]

Your thread is off topic

Please use another newsgroup

I'd recommend comp.offtopic.discussion

*plonk*

 

[alex]

left kindergarten yet?

*plonk*

 

[Richard Bos]

[ Learn to post: leave in some context when you reply. Like this: ]

yes but this is a strictly C only ng isnt it?
this thread has nothing to do with C so its off topic.

You miss Keith's point. Discussions of topicality are on-topic anywhere,
everywhere, no matter what the normal topic of the group. This is not
just true in comp.lang.c, but everywhere on Usenet.

Richard

 

[Keith Thompson]

[ Learn to post: leave in some context when you reply. Like this: ]

yes but this is a strictly C only ng isnt it?
this thread has nothing to do with C so its off topic.

You miss Keith's point. Discussions of topicality are on-topic anywhere,
everywhere, no matter what the normal topic of the group. This is not
just true in comp.lang.c, but everywhere on Usenet.

Richard

I suggest we all stop feeding this troll. If we don't respond,
perhaps he'll go away.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

yes but this is a strictly C only ng isnt it?
this thread has nothing to do with C so its off topic.

Try taking some "reading for comprehension" lessons.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

left kindergarten yet?

Talking to yourself again?