OT: Google's latest dungheap

[Rui Maciel]

OK. I think that is one of the daftest ideas about topicality
I've ever heard. Thank you for making your position clear.

Why, exactly, is it "daft"? The poster clearly warned that the post was off
topic and therefore, due to that information, no one was forced to spend
bandwidth or even time on that message, let alone reply to it.

Not with /that/, no.

So why exactly did you opted to unleash that hissy fit instead of simply
ignoring the post and moving on with your life?

I haven't said anything here about how someone should write a usenet
post. I've spoken only about the /topics/ of such posts.

You complained about the content of a message, it's destination and even the
labelling on the subject line. You also complained about the volume of
replies that were sent which also shared the properties stated above. The
description of this newsgroup is "Discussions about C." It's
not "discussions about the content, destination or composition of posts
sent here". If you really feel strongly about what is and is not on topic
in this newsgroup then this would not have come as a surprise.

Taking your own position seriously would mean that I could do no
such thing. I have no "force" to impose. I have an argued position.

That's rich. Isn't your "argued position" that no one should post any
message to this newsgroup, whether it starts a new thread or is a followup,
unless it is on topic (according to your views, of course)? Isn't your
hissy fit due to failure to satisfy your personal demand? Aren't you
complaining about how the posts that were sent to this thread fail to fit
your views of what should be sent here?

Discussions of topicality have traditionally been topical.

Traditionally, off-topic posts are also accepted and acceptable, not only in
open groups such as this one but also in some moderated groups.

Ye gods, where do /get/ these ideas from? I'm not /insulted/ by such
posts. I think they're /inappropriate/. When there's enough inappropriate
posts, the value of a newsgroup decreases: the signal is lost in the
noise. I happen to want signal to remain in comp.lang.c.

You believe they are "inappropriate" but still you feel so strongly about it
that you feel forced to "express your amazement" which, as they end up
looking like hissy fits, sounds a lot as if those posts offend you in any
way, shape or form.

You are, of course, free to ignore any post I might make.

Indeed. I'm also free to reply to any post which I see fit, when I see fit.

Because I know that people I respect post in this one, and this is
the one to which I contribute. I know this particular thread doesn't
make it visible, but I /have/ been known to comment on C code and C
the language as well as express my amazement at rampant offtopicality.

If an off-topic post is sent to this newsgroup, are you in any way deprived
of the privilege of accessing the posts which are sent by those you
respect? Are you in any way barred from contributing to this newsgroup? And
what about if you were able to simply ignore those posts which are
off-topic?


Best regards
Rui Maciel

 

[Christopher Layne]

Yeah, sure, be another idle hand letting the group descend into
anarchy. Thanks for the advice.

Oh please. Melodrama. In addition, people are not exactly posting 100s of OT
threads a week. When it gets to that point, then we can deal with it.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Oh please. Melodrama. In addition, people are not exactly posting 100s of OT
threads a week. When it gets to that point, then we can deal with it.

When and if it gets to that point, it will be too late. Some of us
are trying to *prevent* it from getting to that point, as I believe it
inevitably will if we sit back and do nothing. (It's happened before
in other groups.)

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Rui Maciel said:

It not only *should* but it also *does* mean it. Your amazement doesn't
come as a surprise. But now that this simple concept has been explained to
you (and assuming that you were able to understand it) I believe that you
can easily understand how those "topic police" tantrums don't favour
anyone or help any newsgroup at all.

When you've contributed as much to this newsgroup as Chris Dollin has,
you'll be in a position to have your views on topicality taken as seriously
as his are taken. Until then, you're wasting your time. So I suggest you
get involved in the technical discussions, and show us that you are a
serious subscriber who knows his stuff, over a period of months or years.

 

[Christopher Layne]

When you've contributed as much to this newsgroup as Chris Dollin has,
you'll be in a position to have your views on topicality taken as seriously
as his are taken. Until then, you're wasting your time. So I suggest you
get involved in the technical discussions, and show us that you are a
serious subscriber who knows his stuff, over a period of months or years.

So advocation of the good ole boys club?

A wrong assessment is a wrong assessment - and tantrums should be permitted
from no one - no matter how long their standing.

Quite simply that's all it is/was - a tantrum on not wanting to read a thread
about google whatever dung heap.

 

[Christopher Layne]

When and if it gets to that point, it will be too late. Some of us
are trying to *prevent* it from getting to that point, as I believe it
inevitably will if we sit back and do nothing. (It's happened before
in other groups.)

There's a point between here and there: <here> <middle> <there>

I just see a bunch of paranoia and insecurity if you ask me. Just seems like a
bunch of iron fisted mommies trying to prevent what *could happen* from
happening. So tell Jimmy to not stay out late after school and he'll do it?
Yeah right.

 

[CBFalconer]

Who wrote the above quotes? It wasn't Keith.

There's a point between here and there: <here> <middle> <there>

I just see a bunch of paranoia and insecurity if you ask me. Just
seems like a bunch of iron fisted mommies trying to prevent what
*could happen* from happening. So tell Jimmy to not stay out late
after school and he'll do it? Yeah right.

Please do not snip attributions for material you quote.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

 

[santosh]

Of course it is OK, specially if the poster warns forehand that the post os
off-topic. It is also ok for you to ignore whatever post you wish to
ignore. No one is forced to read them, let alone reply to them. Is there a
problem with that?

This logic of "everything is ok. don't like it, just ignore", only
goes so far. You've to draw the line somewhere.

This newsgroup is about the C programming language, not about your views on
how someone should write a usenet post.

<snip>

Discussions on topicality are topical.

<snip>

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Christopher Layne said:

So advocation of the good ole boys club?

No, advocacy of common sense. If you haven't put the work into this group,
why should anyone care what you think about how it's run?

A wrong assessment is a wrong assessment - and tantrums should be
permitted from no one - no matter how long their standing.

The assessment was not wrong at all, and I don't accept that the word
"tantrum" applies here. What applies here is the word "stupid", and it
applies to the person who thought that the Usenet concept of topicality is
so trivial and unimportant that you can wave it away with a couple of
keypresses.

Quite simply that's all it is/was - a tantrum on not wanting to read a
thread about google whatever dung heap.

No, it was a perfectly reasonable complaint about someone deliberately
starting an off-topic thread. It is *not* sufficient just to badge the
thread as OT. What the OP should have done was found a newsgroup where
dungheaps, or Google, or both, are topical.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Christopher Layne said:

There's a point between here and there: <here> <middle> <there>

"Here" is well-defined - topicality just about under control. "There" is
well-defined - topicality completely out to lunch, bozos post any old junk,
experts have all left. In between, though, is not well-defined. It's just a
sliding scale (or, more accurately, a slippery slope) of more and more
bozos posting more and more junk, and more and more experts leaving. No
single point on that progression can people sensibly define what is
acceptable on the group and what is not, except very, very near the two
ends, the "C is topical, topicality is topical, everything else is not" end
and the "anything goes" end. The comp.lang.c++ group decided to relax their
topicality rules a few years ago, and was almost destroyed as a result. It
took them years to recover.

I just see a bunch of paranoia and insecurity if you ask me.

I just see that experts on C are spending their time arguing about non-C
instead of helping people with C, because the alternative is either wasting
their time reading about non-C for as long as it takes to establish that
it's about non-C, which is currently a small but non-zero value but will
increase if your proposed broadening of topicality is accepted, or no
longer bothering to subscribe. The latter course is one which will tempt
more and more experts as the C signal-noise ratio plummets.

Just seems like a bunch of iron fisted mommies

Or concerned netizens, depending on your perspective.

trying to prevent what *could happen* from happening.

Because they've seen it happen before, and it ain't pretty.

So tell Jimmy to not stay out late after school and he'll do it? Yeah
right.

What Jimmy does after school is his problem, unless he tries to do it
*here*, in which case it's our problem too. This is a community, not a
shop. The experts here don't get paid for the help they provide. If you'd
like to know what the group would be like without them, take a look at the
"quality" of the answers provided by the non-experts, and then imagine that
level of uncorrected misinformation in every thread.

 

[Christopher Layne]

Who wrote the above quotes? It wasn't Keith.

He wrote the most recently quoted in the article I quoted. Stop being a
pedant.

Please do not snip attributions for material you quote.

Please do not command me to abide by your universe and what you feel to
be "the proper way to do things", Chuck. I provide a reasonable level of
attribution - and that's that.

 

[Rui Maciel]

When you've contributed as much to this newsgroup as Chris Dollin has,
you'll be in a position to have your views on topicality taken as
seriously as his are taken. Until then, you're wasting your time. So I
suggest you get involved in the technical discussions, and show us that
you are a serious subscriber who knows his stuff, over a period of months
or years.

I have to point it out to you that things like seniority or volume of
traffic generated are absolutely irrelevant when dealing with logical
reasoning. The reasoning conveyed through a message is completely
independent of who makes it, when he makes it, how he makes it. If you
believe that the logical value of a statement can vary according to whoever
states it then I have to point it out to you that you have bigger problems
on your hands than "topicality" on a newsgroup.

Think about that for a moment.


Best regards
Rui Maciel

 

[Rui Maciel]

No, advocacy of common sense.

It doesn't look like it. Common sense indicates that if anyone doesn't want
to read a message then the only thing that that person needs to do is not
read it. There is absolutely no need to throw a hissy fit just because you
don't agree with what was written in a message.

If you haven't put the work into this group,
why should anyone care what you think about how it's run?

And why exactly should anyone care about what you think, really?

The assessment was not wrong at all, and I don't accept that the word
"tantrum" applies here. What applies here is the word "stupid", and it
applies to the person who thought that the Usenet concept of topicality is
so trivial and unimportant that you can wave it away with a couple of
keypresses.

First of all, the problem here wasn't the assessment or lack thereof. The
problem was the mindless tantrum and the attempt to force personal views on
others as if they were some kind of law. Chris Dollin attacked an innocent
off-topic post as if it was some sort of crime that should be punished and
then acted as if he was the brave little content enforcing agent that is
fighting to not let a newsgroup "descend into anarchy". For god's sake,
this group received 5 OT threads in the last week, 3 of them being pure
spam. To put it in other words, this newsgroup only saw 2 OT threads being
started in the last week (this thread and another one), between dozens of
on-topic threads. Does this level of OT posts justify that some user
bestows upon himself the role of topic enforcer and goes around throwing
tantrums at anyone who disrespects his own personal view of the world?

No, it was a perfectly reasonable complaint about someone deliberately
starting an off-topic thread. It is *not* sufficient just to badge the
thread as OT. What the OP should have done was found a newsgroup where
dungheaps, or Google, or both, are topical.

So who exactly was offended by the start of this post? Was it so offencive
that, although it was the second OT thread in a week in a group which sees
dozens of threads being started in the same period, it was impossible to
simply ignore it and move on?


Best regards
Rui Maciel

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Rui Maciel said:

I have to point it out to you that things like seniority or volume of
traffic generated are absolutely irrelevant when dealing with logical
reasoning.

Fine words, if "opinion" and "logical reasoning" were the same thing. You
weren't reasoning logically, in the sense of showing how a conclusion is
required to follow from given premises. You were merely stating an opinion.
Your stated opinion, to which I was responding, was:

"I believe that you can easily understand how those "topic police" tantrums
don't favour anyone or help any newsgroup at all."

I can understand why you might believe that, although I don't agree that
it's true. What you call '"topic police" tantrums' are what I would call
perfectly reasonable attempts to keep the group topical and therefore
focused and cohesive. Your opinion varies from Chris's opinion. Chris has
more experience of the group and has invested far more in it than you, and
so I give his opinion more weight than I give yours. If you want me to
credit your opinion with weight, either back it up with relevant citations
from the C Standard (which, in this case, would be rather difficult), or
demonstrate over a period of years that you are a person whose opinion is
worth listening to.

The reasoning conveyed through a message is completely
independent of who makes it, when he makes it, how he makes it.

Sure, but mere assertions do not constitute reasoning.

If you
believe that the logical value of a statement can vary according to
whoever states it then I have to point it out to you that you have bigger
problems on your hands than "topicality" on a newsgroup.

If you believe that something has logical value merely because it is stated,
then you are in danger of damaging your ability to be taken seriously in
this group.

Think about that for a moment.

I didn't need to. The rebuttal was obvious after only three tenths of a
moment.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Rui Maciel said:

It doesn't look like it. Common sense indicates that if anyone doesn't
want to read a message then the only thing that that person needs to do is
not read it.

No. That strategy dumped comp.lang.c++ into a ditch out of which it took
several years to climb. Common sense indicates that, if you want to talk
about a Google product, you do so in a newsgroup dedicated to discussing
Google products, or a newsgroup dedicated to discussing the kind of product
of which the Google product is an example. If you want to talk about C, you
do so in a newsgroup dedicated to discussing C.

There is absolutely no need to throw a hissy fit just because
you don't agree with what was written in a message.

Pointing out the non-topicality of a thread is not the same as throwing a
hissy fit.

And why exactly should anyone care about what you think, really?

I haven't claimed that anyone /should/ care about what I think. All I have
said is that *I* care about what Chris thinks, because over a number of
years I have found that his knowledge of C and of programming are enviable
and valuable to this group. If he decides that comp.lang.c is no longer
worth bothering with because its signal-to-noise ratio is too low, then I
will be one of a great many people who will suffer from his departure. I
think it's worth making the effort to preserve the value of this group to
those wishing to learn more about C. So I do my bit. Not much, actually - I
am not one of those who habitually bangs out "Off-topic!" articles at every
opportunity - but when the matter is up for discussion, I see no reason why
I shouldn't make my views known.

First of all, the problem here wasn't the assessment or lack thereof. The
problem was the mindless tantrum

Here you lose any sympathy I might have had for your point of view. Chris is
not in the habit of throwing mindless tantrums, and to claim otherwise,
whilst doing him no damage, does you no favours whatsoever.

and the attempt to force personal views
on others as if they were some kind of law.

He expressed a view, just as you are doing now. Nobody is stopping you from
expressing your view. Why should he not express his?

Chris Dollin attacked an innocent off-topic post

Innocent off-topic post? That's a contradiction in terms.

[...] this group received 5 OT threads in the last week, 3 of them
being pure spam. To put it in other words, this newsgroup only saw 2 OT
threads being started in the last week (this thread and another one),

So what you're saying is that, on the whole, the policy of opposing OT posts
is working. Good. Long may it continue.

<snip>

 

[Default User]

Rui Maciel said:


No. That strategy dumped comp.lang.c++ into a ditch out of which it
took several years to climb.

And they clumbed out by adopting almost identical topicality rules and
enforcement methods to clc. They go a bit better by having a nice "how
to post" section in the newsgroup FAQ.




Brian

 

[Christopher Layne]

Using 3.5.6 here too. I normally have Konqueror configured to identify
itself as Mozilla to Google for other reasons, but I tried the default
identification, and still don't run into your problem.

Harald, here is the bug I was referring to:

http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140531

 

[Chris Dollin]

So advocation of the good ole boys club?

A wrong assessment is a wrong assessment - and tantrums should be permitted
from no one - no matter how long their standing.

Quite simply that's all it is/was - a tantrum on not wanting to read a thread
about google whatever dung heap.

Don't be silly. That was no more a tantrum than this is a award-winning
short story set in ancient Egypt.

 

[santosh]

Starting a new thread because the other discussion was
buried in the depths of some other thread.

Someone at Google seems to have got the message. The middle frame is
now wider the right hand side ad frame has been pushed partly out of
the page border. Now one can read the messages in the middle frame
without using two scrollbars. matevzb's code is still useful.