[OT] Google Groups: vote for Default quoting

[John Bokma]

Google Groups let you vote for new features. Vote for default quoting:
<http://tinyurl.com/aqe6y>

"Default quoting of previous message in replies"

one above the last option.

(which goes to <http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request.py?
contact_type=features> which wraps around in my client)

 

[usenet]

Google Groups let you vote for new features. Vote for default quoting:
<http://tinyurl.com/aqe6y>

I'm replying to your post in Google Groups. I didn't need to do
anything to use the quoting style above (except snip for brevity) -
this quoting style is ALREADY the default behavior when replying via
ShowOptions / Reply (which is the preferred way to reply). Is this poll
asking about what happens if you use the "reply" link at the _bottom_
of the post?

 

[A. Sinan Unur]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

I'm replying to your post in Google Groups. I didn't need to do
anything to use the quoting style above (except snip for brevity) -
this quoting style is ALREADY the default behavior when replying via
ShowOptions / Reply (which is the preferred way to reply). Is this poll
asking about what happens if you use the "reply" link at the _bottom_
of the post?

I am assuming they are talking about the latter. After all, most people
posting from GG do not do what you so nicely do.

Sinan

 

[John Bokma]

John Bokma ([email protected]) wrote on MMMMCDLX September MCMXCIII
in <URL:.. Google Groups let you vote for new features. Vote for default
quoting: .. <http://tinyurl.com/aqe6y>
..
.. "Default quoting of previous message in replies"
..
.. one above the last option.


Why would I? I don't use google groups, and I don't read postings made
via google groups.

Some people have no other option than to use Google Groups. I used to
ploink everybody, but I use now just a negative score, and up people who
do quote correctly (like David Filmer ).

Google is evil.

And ignoring people who use it is not going to change that.

I'm not going to collect their cookies, let alone
bother to vote.

Yup being overly paranoid is healty

 

[usenet]

Google is evil. I'm not going to collect their cookies...

Wow. Evil, huh? Just out of curiosity, may I ask what non-evil (and
cookie-less) search engine you usually use?

 

[Matt Garrish]

John Bokma ([email protected]) wrote on MMMMCDLX September MCMXCIII in
<URL:.. Google Groups let you vote for new features. Vote for default quoting:
.. <http://tinyurl.com/aqe6y>
..
.. "Default quoting of previous message in replies"
..
.. one above the last option.


Why would I? I don't use google groups, and I don't read postings made
via google groups.

Google is evil. I'm not going to collect their cookies, let alone
bother to vote.

Amateur. I toss their cookies! : )

Matt

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Google Groups let you vote for new features. Vote for default quoting:
<http://tinyurl.com/aqe6y>

"Default quoting of previous message in replies"

Well, I'm sorry, but they've let this go on for too long to be able to
take them seriously. Asking for votes now is just a way of seeking
attention for their services, AFAICS. If they'd learn some basic
netiquette and promote it to their users, then they'd be in a better
position. It doesn't need votes to do that.

But their presentation, even if not overtly, strongly suggests to me
that they want to present the long-standing usenet newsgroups to their
users as if they might be Google's own proprietary discussion forums.
I can't be doing with that, so, with the exception of a few names
filtered specially, I'm filtering them below the visibility horizon of
my news client; therefore I no longer care that most of their users
haven't a clue about Usenet. The day's too short to read every
posting, anyway, so one has to apply *some* kind of selection, and
this happens to be one of mine.

best regards

 

[John Bokma]

Wow. Evil, huh? Just out of curiosity, may I ask what non-evil (and
cookie-less) search engine you usually use?

The Open Source one of course.

Now wait....

 

[John Bokma]

Well, I'm sorry, but they've let this go on for too long to be able to
take them seriously. Asking for votes now is just a way of seeking
attention for their services, AFAICS.

OMG, visiting one page, and clicking is seeking attention for their
services? Does Google need such a thing? There are plenty of sites that
hype Google daily, I doubt that they need some people on Usenet voting to
promoot their services.

I can't be doing with that, so, with the exception of a few names
filtered specially, I'm filtering them below the visibility horizon of
my news client; therefore I no longer care that most of their users
haven't a clue about Usenet. The day's too short to read every
posting, anyway, so one has to apply *some* kind of selection, and
this happens to be one of mine.

But how do you find new people that are worthy?

 

[Lars Kellogg-Stedman]

But how do you find new people that are worthy?

They're the ones that burn incense and leave money at the altar when
they come to request Our sage advice.

Seriously, though -- auto-plonking people because you don't like their
newsreader doesn't seem like a good way to keep Usenet a vibrant and
thriving community. I'm glad that 15 years ago people weren't blocking
my newbie messages due to my choice of software!

-- Lars

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

they want to present the long-standing usenet newsgroups to their
users as if they might be Google's own proprietary discussion forums.

Very true, unfortunately.

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

with the exception of a few names filtered specially, I'm filtering
[Google postings] below the visibility horizon of
my news client; therefore I no longer care that most of their users
haven't a clue about Usenet. The day's too short to read every
posting, anyway, so one has to apply *some* kind of selection, and
this happens to be one of mine.

But how do you find new people that are worthy?

Do you also question the use of spam filters since worthy messages that
'look like' crap might be filtered out?

 

[John Bokma]

They're the ones that burn incense and leave money at the altar when
they come to request Our sage advice.

Seriously, though -- auto-plonking people because you don't like their
newsreader doesn't seem like a good way to keep Usenet a vibrant and
thriving community. I'm glad that 15 years ago people weren't blocking
my newbie messages due to my choice of software!

Yup, I agree (although my sig shows a different message). OTOH, 9 out of
10 people using Google Groups are ignorant, and stay like that. So let's
hope that if Google makes the change back, that we are not bothered by 9
out of 10 people quoting 100%.

 

[John Bokma]

with the exception of a few names filtered specially, I'm filtering
[Google postings] below the visibility horizon of
my news client; therefore I no longer care that most of their users
haven't a clue about Usenet. The day's too short to read every
posting, anyway, so one has to apply *some* kind of selection, and
this happens to be one of mine.

But how do you find new people that are worthy?

Do you also question the use of spam filters since worthy messages that
'look like' crap might be filtered out?

I certainly do question spam filters that filter on one specific item in a
mail header, yes. Maybe that's why most spamfilters are very sophisticated
software that use a weighted score from many rules.

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

I certainly do question spam filters that filter on one specific item in a
mail header, yes. Maybe that's why most spamfilters are very sophisticated
software that use a weighted score from many rules.

If I want my (Usenet or email) messages to be read, I'd better make
_some_ own effort to make them not be mixed up with spam. It would be
unreasonable IMNSHO to demand from the recipients that they _alone_ have
the responsibility to figure out that my messages are worth reading.

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

If I want my (Usenet or email) messages to be read, I'd better make
_some_ own effort to make them not be mixed up with spam. It would be
unreasonable IMNSHO to demand from the recipients that they _alone_ have
the responsibility to figure out that my messages are worth reading.

Or more generally: You need to earn your right to be paid attention to.

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

LKS> Seriously, though -- auto-plonking people because you don't
LKS> like their newsreader doesn't seem like a good way to keep
LKS> Usenet a vibrant and thriving community. I'm glad that 15
LKS> years ago people weren't blocking my newbie messages due to
LKS> my choice of software!

Years ago I added Delphi to my killfile, because for every interesting
person on Delphi, there were seven or eight twits, and the interesting
people soon figured out that there were services other than Delphi.

Then Prodigy showed up, and they made Delphi look tame. Fortunately,
my killfile still had space in it, and the intelligent people found
other services.

Then AOL showed up, and we realized just how lucky we had been with
Delphi and Prodigy. My killfile got a workout, and somewhere in there
I switched to a scorefile, and Delphi and Prodigy and later AOL
started looking after themselves.

Now it's Google Groups. As near as I can tell, for every interesting
and clueful person on Google Groups, there are twenty to thirty twits;
though perhaps there are only ten or so twits, and the horrifically
bad posting software they have provided is making the others look bad.
So I added a rule to not even download and score any post coming from
Google Groups.

And you know what? It really doesn't matter to me; there's more
*good* Usenet than I have time to read, and if I filter out some
intelligent people while filtering out the vast majority of junk,
well, them's the breaks. If you care about me reading your posts so
badly that you're upset that I don't, well, that's an incentive to get
another news host.

Beyond that, I trust that this time, just like every other time
there's been an infusion of idiots onto Usenet via an easily
accessible service, the people with a bit of smarts will realize that
they're being ignored because of their news host and pay the $10 a
year for news.cfn.de or some other news service.

Charlton

 

[Ilya Zakharevich]

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Matt Garrish

Amateur. I toss their cookies! : )

Hmm, this looks like this (silly) advice of swapping the grocery
stores cards with your friends to hide you from the watch - in the
case you also use a credit card. Having two pieces of info (customer
card number and credit card number) it is very easy to work around
such games. (There was a discussion in comp.risks; see the archives.)

Likewise with google: the only reliable way to untrace yourselves is
to change your IP address *similtaneously* with a cooky flush. And I
do not know a reliable way to do this... (Also discussed in comp.risks...)

Hope this helps,
Ilya

 

[John Bokma]

If I want my (Usenet or email) messages to be read, I'd better make
_some_ own effort to make them not be mixed up with spam.

Imagine your Usenet server is down, and you have an urgent question do you

[a] nothing
use Google Groups?

I have done the latter in the past. Also note that some people using GG do
post useful replies, etc.

It would be
unreasonable IMNSHO to demand from the recipients that they _alone_
have the responsibility to figure out that my messages are worth
reading.

Who else has that responsibility? The reader decides, or don't I
understand you?

 

[John Bokma]

Or more generally: You need to earn your right to be paid attention
to.

Yes, true. And hence ploinking everybody using Google Groups, like I did
some time ago (have to fix that sig), means everybody using GG is unable
to earn that right.