To Users of Google Groups

[arbpen2003]

If you are replying to a message in this group (or any group), please
be sure that you have clicked on Show Options. Then when you reply to
a message, the original message will be quoted for you. Be sure to
only reply to relavent portions and snip anything superfluous.

If you do not click on Show Options, no one will know to what you are
replying. This is especially true of users who are not using Google
Groups (and that's a lot of people).

Please realize that you are reading Usenet messages. Most people use a
news reader to read and post Usenet messages. There are many news
clients available, some free. You can Google for Usenet News Readers
and get thousands of results. Not only will you enjoy the benefits of
news client, your messages will get to news servers quickly, not three
hours later.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

If you are replying to a message in this group (or any group), please
be sure that you have clicked on Show Options. Then when you reply to
a message, the original message will be quoted for you. Be sure to
only reply to relavent portions and snip anything superfluous.

If you do not click on Show Options, no one will know to what you are
replying. This is especially true of users who are not using Google
Groups (and that's a lot of people).

Please realize that you are reading Usenet messages. Most people use a
news reader to read and post Usenet messages. There are many news
clients available, some free. You can Google for Usenet News Readers
and get thousands of results. Not only will you enjoy the benefits of
news client, your messages will get to news servers quickly, not three
hours later.

....moreover, your message will less likely be killfiled (some people already
do this to messages originating in Google Groups). I have no problem with
Google Groups, but it encourages messages that will rarely get replied to,
sometimes even displayed. Also, such messages will often just distract many
regular readers. How many times have we seen a reply to a thread from last
year or several months ago? This is why they call it _news_groups, not
archivegroups.

If you use Google Groups regularly, it is in your best of interests to
'upgrade' and use a native newsreader, my recommendation being Thunderbird,
which is free and cross-platform:

www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird

Roy

 

[dingbat]

If you do not click on Show Options, no one will know to what you are
replying.

This is untrue. Although quoting is useful (particularly where
appropriately trimmed) the inter-message threading mechanism for Usenet
is the references: header in the post's header, not some arbitary chunk
of text in the body. If you can't follw these references, then you
need a better newsreader more than you need to kf Google.

 

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed (e-mail address removed) writing in

This is untrue. Although quoting is useful (particularly where
appropriately trimmed) the inter-message threading mechanism for Usenet
is the references: header in the post's header, not some arbitary chunk
of text in the body. If you can't follw these references, then you
need a better newsreader more than you need to kf Google.

I was making a general point for persons who use Google Groups, and only
hitting Reply get a little box with no way to quote relavent text.
Further, the post to which they are replying might not be on the server
anymore, making it even more important to quote.

 

[Greg N.]

...moreover, your message will less likely be killfiled (some people already
do this to messages originating in Google Groups). I have no problem with
Google Groups, but it encourages messages that will rarely get replied to,
sometimes even displayed.

"if you use google groups, you'll be killfiled"
"if you don't use your real name, you'll be killfiled"
"if you use OE, you'll be killfiled"

Ihat's all urban legends, oft-repeated but nonsense nonetheless.

I mean, there might be two or three morons in the usenet world who
really do that, but it is not a measurable percentage.

 

[Els]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed (e-mail address removed) writing in


I was making a general point for persons who use Google Groups, and only
hitting Reply get a little box with no way to quote relavent text.
Further, the post to which they are replying might not be on the server
anymore, making it even more important to quote.

Plus, even though I'm using a proper newsclient, and even though the
threading is there, and if one replies to a message that isn't older
than 30 days I still see it right up there in the correct thread, it's
still a PITA to have to move the cursor to the subject pane, go one up
with the arrow, then read the previous message, before I get to know
what you are replying to.

You (Dingbat) are doing it very nicely now, and I would appreciate it
if you would keep doing that, and not encourage others to omit it.

 

[Spartanicus]

"if you use google groups, you'll be killfiled"
"if you don't use your real name, you'll be killfiled"
"if you use OE, you'll be killfiled"

Ihat's all urban legends, oft-repeated but nonsense nonetheless.

I mean, there might be two or three morons in the usenet world who
really do that, but it is not a measurable percentage.

The percentage is likely to be small, but morons those people are not,
in fact they are likely to supply the best answers. Without assuming
that I'm in that category, I do filter all posts from Google groups and
direct follow ups to such posts in all but one of the groups I read.

 

[Safalra]

If you are replying to a message in this group (or any group), please
be sure that you have clicked on Show Options. Then when you reply to
a message, the original message will be quoted for you. Be sure to
only reply to relavent portions and snip anything superfluous.

You should mention that it'll only work if they click the 'Reply'
option above the message, and not the one below:

http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

 

[Safalra]

The percentage is likely to be small, but morons those people are not,
in fact they are likely to supply the best answers.

I disagree - the best answers tend to come from people who are willing
to reply to any message, even if the person breaks all the rules of
netiquette and spells every other word incorrectly (of course, they
also point out to the person that they've broken all the rules of
netiquette and have spelt every other word incorrectly). (I'm thinking
of Jukka Korpela here.)

Anway, I've never experienced any problems as a user of Google Groups
(for three years now).

 

[dingbat]

You (Dingbat) are doing it very nicely now, and I would appreciate it
if you would keep doing that, and not encourage others to omit it.

Why thankyou !

When I've been using these Google Usenews things on the Interweb for as
long as you have, then I'm sure I'll get the hang of them

 

[Els]

Why thankyou !

When I've been using these Google Usenews things on the Interweb for as
long as you have,

Eh.. I've never used 'Google Usenews'. Not even once
I use what one calls a 'proper newsclient' to read and post to Usenet.
You may wanna try it out: 40tude Dialog.

then I'm sure I'll get the hang of them

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kim_Andr=E9_Aker=F8?=]

[snip]

When I've been using these Google Usenews things on the Interweb
for as long as you have,

Eh.. I've never used 'Google Usenews'. Not even once
I use what one calls a 'proper newsclient' to read and post to Usenet.
You may wanna try it out: 40tude Dialog.

I also tend to only use a proper newsreader, in my case, XanaNews. I've
used the Google Groups thingamabob on occasion, and then only to read
and/or search for messages in the archive (ie. messages that are older
than a couple of months back).

 

[Els]

[snip]

When I've been using these Google Usenews things on the Interweb
for as long as you have,

Eh.. I've never used 'Google Usenews'. Not even once
I use what one calls a 'proper newsclient' to read and post to Usenet.
You may wanna try it out: 40tude Dialog.

I also tend to only use a proper newsreader, in my case, XanaNews. I've
used the Google Groups thingamabob on occasion, and then only to read
and/or search for messages in the archive (ie. messages that are older
than a couple of months back).

Ah yes, I've done that too. I meant I never used it to post or reply.
Never subscribed. But yes, as an archive it's invaluable.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

It's probably true that threats are made much more often than messages get
killfiled.

I disagree - the best answers tend to come from people who are willing
to reply to any message, even if the person breaks all the rules of
netiquette and spells every other word incorrectly (of course, they
also point out to the person that they've broken all the rules of
netiquette and have spelt every other word incorrectly).

Some people answer without providing an actual answer or making the
discussion a productive one. This doesn't happen in this group though.

I agree with the earlier argument. Readers/moderators who killfile are
likely to have given the best answer. They would not have gotten that
deserved thank-you though...

(I'm thinking of Jukka Korpela here.)

Who as well as slagging users off for poor netiquette insults them at times.

Anway, I've never experienced any problems as a user of Google Groups
(for three years now).

Roy

 

[Safalra]

Who as well as slagging users off for poor netiquette insults them at times.

Okay, he can be a bit abrasive at times. Maybe that's an
understatement... However, I've found he almost always either answers
the question or tells you why it's the wrong question, even if he's not
always diplomatic about it. I put it down to him being Finnish

 

[Blinky the Shark]

The percentage is likely to be small, but morons those people are not,
in fact they are likely to supply the best answers. Without assuming
that I'm in that category, I do filter all posts from Google groups and
direct follow ups to such posts in all but one of the groups I read.

See sig.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

[snip]

When I've been using these Google Usenews things on the Interweb
for as long as you have,

Eh.. I've never used 'Google Usenews'. Not even once
I use what one calls a 'proper newsclient' to read and post to Usenet.
You may wanna try it out: 40tude Dialog.

I also tend to only use a proper newsreader, in my case, XanaNews. I've
used the Google Groups thingamabob on occasion, and then only to read
and/or search for messages in the archive (ie. messages that are older
than a couple of months back).

I, too, use a very proper news client, as my headers indicate, and I've
never had to stoop to using GG as a posting method. Sig is relevant.

 

[Mason A. Clark]

If you are replying to a message in this group (or any group), please
be sure that you have clicked on Show Options. Then when you reply to
a message, the original message will be quoted for you. Be sure to
only reply to relavent portions and snip anything superfluous.

If you do not click on Show Options, no one will know to what you are
replying. This is especially true of users who are not using Google
Groups (and that's a lot of people).

Please realize that you are reading Usenet messages. Most people use a
news reader to read and post Usenet messages. There are many news
clients available, some free. You can Google for Usenet News Readers
and get thousands of results. Not only will you enjoy the benefits of
news client, your messages will get to news servers quickly, not three
hours later.

I have used for many years -- and strongly recommend -- Agent.
But I'm curious: what are the reasons if any for using Google Groups?

Mason C

 

[Greg N.]

But I'm curious: what are the reasons if any for using Google Groups?

I found it useful at times when there was no news server available to
me, like behind that nasty firewall in the office.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I have used for many years -- and strongly recommend -- Agent.
But I'm curious: what are the reasons if any for using Google Groups?

1. No clue as to what Usenet really is or how to use it. I'd say this
is by far the most common reason.

2. Can't use a real news client at work.