structuring off-topicity

[Agent Mulder]

Hi group,

I thought it might be a good idea to come up with
a tagging system for off-topic posts, Borland style.
So instead of the 'generic'

[OT]Soundcard crashed under VC6.0

we would have

[e4017]Soundcard crashed under VC6.0

where e6017 means something like
e - error, totally off-topic
60 - Microsoft VC6.0
1 -soundcard
7 - crashed

For less serious off-topicity there might be a 'w'
category:

[w1083]

read as:
w - warning
10 - self-appointed moderator,
8 - stating only that this is off-topic
3 - unnecessary rude or harsh tone

This category is necessary because I consider an
enumeration of all thing that C++ is *not*, ie Java,
pinacle, cupcake... off-topic by itself.

With this list of error- and warning messages, in the
FAQ presumably, scanning news will be easier and
faster. Also, it would make for some nice statistics
after some time (not counting the leap seconds).

This post itself could well land in the e0000 category,
general off-topic ;-)

-X

 

[Josephine Schafer]

Hi group,

I thought it might be a good idea to come up with
a tagging system for off-topic posts, Borland style.
So instead of the 'generic'

[OT]Soundcard crashed under VC6.0

we would have

[e4017]Soundcard crashed under VC6.0

Shouldn't it be [e6017] by the nomenclature you suggest ?
Wonder where I categorise my post ?

 

[Victor Bazarov]

I thought it might be a good idea to come up with
a tagging system for off-topic posts, Borland style.

No, that would legitimise off-topic posts. Off-topic posts
do not have their place here, tagged or not.

[...]
This category is necessary because I consider an
enumeration of all thing that C++ is *not*, ie Java,
pinacle, cupcake... off-topic by itself.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but, alas, you're
incorrect. An explanation to a visitor (who may be lost) that
he or she is off-topic and _why_ is never off-topic.

Also, there are no moderators here (contrary to what you might
want to believe). Everybody is allowed to post. What they
post may or may not qualify as off-topic, that's for the rest
of the community to decide (based on their understanding and
commonly accepted practices). Look at your own post, you're
expressing your opinion on what is and what isn't off-topic.
Does that make _you_ a self-appointed moderator?

[...]
This post itself could well land in the e0000 category,
general off-topic ;-)

I'd rather put it into troll666 category, malicious trolling.
Tread lightly now.

Victor

 

[Alexander Terekhov]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but, alas, you're
incorrect. An explanation to a visitor (who may be lost) ...

Can be done via the [off-band] "Reply to Sender Only", idiot.

regards,
alexander.

 

[Thomas Matthews]

Hi group,

I thought it might be a good idea to come up with
a tagging system for off-topic posts, Borland style. [snip]

-X

How about if we just avoid off-topic posts and post
to the appropriate newsgroups instead?

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but, alas, you're
incorrect. An explanation to a visitor (who may be lost) ...

Can be done via the [off-band] "Reply to Sender Only", idiot.

Haven't been around newsgroups much in the last couple of years much? It's
now very few and far between that posters have legitimate email addresses
listed, thus Reply to Sender is useless. Generally they've been anti-spam
mangled. Plus, by educating one off-topic poster, the reply becomes
educational to other readers as well.

Andre, don't feed trolls. They belong in killfiles. Do not
give anybody a reason to put your address next to his there.

 

[Andre Kostur]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but, alas, you're
incorrect. An explanation to a visitor (who may be lost) ...

Can be done via the [off-band] "Reply to Sender Only", idiot.

Haven't been around newsgroups much in the last couple of years much? It's
now very few and far between that posters have legitimate email addresses
listed, thus Reply to Sender is useless. Generally they've been anti-spam
mangled. Plus, by educating one off-topic poster, the reply becomes
educational to other readers as well.

 

[Alexander Terekhov]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but, alas, you're
incorrect. An explanation to a visitor (who may be lost) ...

Can be done via the [off-band] "Reply to Sender Only", idiot.

Haven't been around newsgroups much in the last couple of years much? It's
now very few and far between that posters have legitimate email addresses
listed, thus Reply to Sender is useless.

Please see the "[1]" link in the message of mine referenced below.

"That would be consistent with the viewpoint that it's appropriate to put
the burden of avoiding spam on people who want to send mail to you,
rather than having to deal with it yourself. I'm with Quinn: people who
deliberately make it difficult for me to send them mail will not receive
mail from me."

Generally they've been anti-spam

Andre, don't feed trolls. They belong in killfiles. Do not
give anybody a reason to put your address next to his there.

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]
(Subject: Re: When to use typename and when class)

regards,
alexander.