 | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) I think that's a bit extreme, although what I snipped below is good discussion fodder. I think a number of the recent cross posts have been initiated by people who either are new, or who don't post as often as some of us. An initial cross post (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | (...) it does - I think. When you post to .annouce, even from mail or nntp, doesn't it require a followup? if so, adding a few other rules to that check should be quite possible... (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | Yes, if you post to .lsahs, it requires a followup when sent via NNTP. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) I mostly concur, I just sometimes wonder if it might be the best solution (of course the counter to that is that you get the jerks who work around the cross posting rules by posting individually to each group - but they can be TOSed). (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Again, I am not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see this problem as one of maliciousness. That is, it isn't "jerks" who are multiposting individual groups, or not setting followups correctly. Just lazy people and people who know (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I guess I should have clarified that I don't think the current round of excessive cross posting is jerks, I'm just pointing out that trivial things like requiring a follow-up header when cross posting doesn't remove the possibility of jerks (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Thanks for the clarification, I think we're in total agreement. I think it WOULD be nice to have some automation that helped people remember not to excessively cross post (and the place to put the one page netiquette FAQ link for people to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I can't think of a practical example for putting multiple groups in the followup-to header. Maybe it's just me ??? I don't think jerk-proofing needs to be a *high* priority around here, although it's good to jerk-proof when it doesn't impact (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) There are reasons to keep a thread in multiple groups, see below. (...) Problem with requiring it on ANY cross posting is the discussions which legitimately belong in two or even three groups. (...) Because of how the web interface works (and (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I've been that everyone. Typically, the reason I do a "reply to all groups" is because I'm arriving in the middle of a large-ish thread, I have no idea what ng's other people have been using,[1] so I just leave things alone, and reply to all (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) Yea, that's a real pain. Sometimes I go to the web interface to follow a thread since you see the whole thread there, but then when the thread gets too big, it becomes worthless to follow it on the web interface because it's hard to keep track (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Dot view parameterizable?? (Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I would like to put into the enhancement hopper the idea of setting a personal preference for how big the tree view should be allowed to get before it is suppressed. I'm willing to pay a bit more delay to get larger trees, some others may want (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Dot view parameterizable?? (Re: Excessive Cross Posting —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | (...) Not entirely sure of what I am talking about here, but would not the delay be caused by more processor time, which is something that we want to get away from? Anyways, you can always choose to view the dots when they are suppressed. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
