Topicality - Are we missing the point?

[Rafael]

Hello List

Since I think the most disrupting thing on c.l.c is the *HUGE* noise
about on-off topic questions, I was wondering - if there is a group
about topicality, will be topicality off-topic here (and anywhere else)?



Rafael

 

[user923005]

Hello List

Since I think the most disrupting thing on c.l.c is the *HUGE* noise
about on-off topic questions, I was wondering - if there is a group
about topicality, will be topicality off-topic here (and anywhere else)?

Discussion of topicality is always topical.
How else will you know if something is topical or not?

 

[Rafael]

user923005 escreveu:

Discussion of topicality is always topical.
How else will you know if something is topical or not?

So... you mean... if there is a group to a specific subject, its still
topical to discuss that (same subject) here?

 

[Guest]

Hello List

Since I think the most disrupting thing on c.l.c is the *HUGE* noise
about on-off topic questions, I was wondering - if there is a group
about topicality, will be topicality off-topic here (and anywhere else)?

sorry I didn't quite get "if there is a group about topicality, will
be topicality off-topic here (and anywhere else)?"

do you mean "if there was[*] a group concerned with topicality
then would discussions of topicality be off-topic here?"

well for one there isn't such a group. And I can't really see
the point of one nor can I see one working. Can you imagine
the meta-meta discussions with trying to persuade
people to use comp.lang.c.topicality? Perhaps we'd need
a group to discuss *that*. clctt leading to
comp.lang.c.topicality.aleph-null



[*] that should be "were" but I was trying not to muddy the waters


--
Nick Keighley

"I don't deal with "if". "if" is a little word that fills volumes.
  If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his rear everytime he
hopped"
                       Don King- boxing promoter

 

[user923005]

user923005 escreveu:



So... you mean... if there is a group to a specific subject, its still
topical to discuss that (same subject) here?

No. I mean you can ask "Is this the best place to talk about <foo>?"

How can there be a group about topicality divorced from the
newsgroup? That makes no sense.

 

[Richard Tobin]

Discussion of topicality is always topical.

That works really well, doesn't it.

How else will you know if something is topical or not?

Which is, of course, just what I came to comp.lang.c to find out.

-- Richard

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Hello List

Since I think the most disrupting thing on c.l.c is the *HUGE* noise
about on-off topic questions, I was wondering - if there is a group
about topicality, will be topicality off-topic here (and anywhere else)?

These might be helpful:

news.announce.newusers
news.groups.questions
news.newusers.questions
news.answers

Topicality isn't really topical here; the C language is.

Asserting the topic is topical, as long as it isn't superfluous,
and doesn't devolve into an (offtopic) argument about topicality.

If five others followed up to say ``off topic'' to an article, try not to be
the sixth. In fact, not even teh second. And if nobody has replied ``off
topic'', don't race to be first.

 

[James Kuyper]

user923005 escreveu:

So... you mean... if there is a group to a specific subject, its still
topical to discuss that (same subject) here?

No, the more precise specification is that discussing whether a given
subject is topical on a given news-group is always topical *On that
newsgroup*. Discussion of whether a subject is on-topic for another
newsgroup should be limited to comments re-directing the OP to that
newsgroup.

 

[Default User]

Hello List

Since I think the most disrupting thing on c.l.c is the HUGE noise
about on-off topic questions, I was wondering - if there is a group
about topicality, will be topicality off-topic here (and anywhere
else)?

So what do you propose should happen when someone posts a (possibly)
off-topic message to CLC?





Brian

 

[Richard]

So what do you propose should happen when someone posts a (possibly)
off-topic message to CLC?

What is a "(possibly) off topic" post?

it's either off topic or not.

And if it involves "c" it's on topic.

 

[CBFalconer]

Since I think the most disrupting thing on c.l.c is the *HUGE*
noise about on-off topic questions, I was wondering - if there
is a group about topicality, will be topicality off-topic here
(and anywhere else)?

No. The primary usefulness of topicality posts is to advise
newbies of what is and is not topical on c.l.c. The noise comes
from people who object to topicality, usually trolls.

 

[Ian Collins]

No. The primary usefulness of topicality posts is to advise
newbies of what is and is not topical on c.l.c. The noise comes
from people who object to topicality, usually trolls.

Or from people who whinge about topicality long after it has already
been addressed.

 

[Andrew Smallshaw]

No. The primary usefulness of topicality posts is to advise
newbies of what is and is not topical on c.l.c. The noise comes
from people who object to topicality, usually trolls.

If that is the case then a weekly posting with a standard author
and subject (so it can be filtered) is all that is required.
Endless topicality discussions are a distraction far worse than
the percieved problem.

 

[Default User]

If that is the case then a weekly posting with a standard author
and subject (so it can be filtered) is all that is required.

And what happens when a new person begins an off-topic thread? Wait
some period of time until the regular message pops up again?




Brian

 

[Antoninus Twink]

So what do you propose should happen when someone posts a (possibly)
off-topic message to CLC?

Here's a radical idea: Why not help them? Why not answer their question?

And if you can't or won't, then why not keep your mouth closed and
killfile the thread without making a big song and dance about it?

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

And what happens when a new person begins an off-topic thread? Wait
some period of time until the regular message pops up again?

This solved by server retention. When a new person enters the newsgroup, he can
find that regular message on the server, if the retention time is long enough,
relative to the posting frequency.

A new person person entering the newsgroup isn't just supposed to start
posting, without so much as downloading a few hundred headers to glance through
the subject lines for any FAQ pointers and such.

 

[Default User]

This solved by server retention. When a new person enters the
newsgroup, he can find that regular message on the server, if the
retention time is long enough, relative to the posting frequency.

Kaz, let's talk reality here. Not what should happen. What really
happens. Newbies show up and start posting.

A new person person entering the newsgroup isn't just supposed to
start posting, without so much as downloading a few hundred headers
to glance through the subject lines for any FAQ pointers and such.

If new people lurked the requisite amount of time, there wouldn't be
off-topic posts NOW. There's certainly plenty of discussion.

So, again, what happens when people post off-topic? Messages to tell
them to go find the topicality post? But isn't that discussion of
topicality?

If the current voluminous threads on the subject aren't prewarnings for
newbies, how will a once a weeker do it?




Brian

 

[Rafael]

Antoninus Twink escreveu:

Here's a radical idea: Why not help them? Why not answer their question?

And if you can't or won't, then why not keep your mouth closed and
killfile the thread without making a big song and dance about it?

Why don't you do exactly that?

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Kaz, let's talk reality here. Not what should happen. What really
happens. Newbies show up and start posting.

Right, so they go a little bit against netiquette. But what is the usual
solution: countering netiquette with more bad netiquette.

If new people lurked the requisite amount of time, there wouldn't be
off-topic posts NOW. There's certainly plenty of discussion.

You don't have to lurk to glance through messages posted over the past few
weeks of a newsgroup you've never been to. (Unless, of course, that newsgroup
wasn't previously carried by your server and you had to request it).

 

[Default User]

Antoninus Twink escreveu:

[blither blather]

Why don't you do exactly that?

Twink is a troll. He wants to generate response. I have him killfiled,
along with the other trolls.




Brian