Subject:
|
Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:16:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
332 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz wrote:
>
> > One problem though is how to jerk proof
> > it without having fuzzy rules (the jerk will just copy the mile long
> > list of newsgroups to the follow-ups header), or putting an artificial
> > limit on the number of follow-up groups (though I bet one could
> > generally get away with a small limit on the number of followup groups,
> > like a max of 3).
>
> I can't think of a practical example for putting multiple groups in the
> followup-to header. Maybe it's just me ???
There are reasons to keep a thread in multiple groups, see below.
> 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 the real users.
>
> > I'd almost be inclined to require that any message
> > with more than one group in the groups list have follow-ups set, but
> > it's probably ok to say: "Any message with more than 3 (or maybe 4 or 5)
> > groups must have follow-ups set."
>
> Yeah, I'd go with your first statement. Require FUT when messages are
> XPOST'ed.
Problem with requiring it on ANY cross posting is the discussions which
legitimately belong in two or even three groups.
> It seems that on LUGNET, the major reason for crossposting is to draw more
> attention to a particular item. With this usage, including a followup-to
> header makes sense, and I can't come up with a reason not to require one.
>
> Another reason for crossposting is to indicate that you are moving a
> subthread to a new group. Definitely need a followup-to in this case.
Because of how the web interface works (and don't the majority of folks
read using the web interface now?), I'm really inclined to thing that
when the discussion moves to a different group, in general a new thread
should be started.
> If a message has information which applies to multiple groups, without a
> clear indication which group should get the followup-to, then the author
> needs to think about breaking up the message into multiple postings.
In many cases yes, but for example, we have seen some crossover MOCs.
Other places where multiple groups are appropriate are when .loc groups
are involved (one problem here is that the .loc hierarchy is poorly
structured, for example, we have lugnet.loc.us.nc.dur and
lugnet.loc.us.nc.ral, which are pointless to be separate groups, the
Raleigh/Durham [Research Triangle Park] area mostly operates as a single
area, in fact, the current and forseeable activity in North Carolina
really only justifies lugnet.loc.nc [which in fact is where we have
managed to move 95% of the discussion, but still, if you want to be 100%
sure of catching everyone, the messages should be cross-posted to all
the .nc.city groups], I have also been cross posting to lugnet.loc.nc
and lugnet.loc.ca.sf about my recent trip because I think both audiences
have some interest, and about zero of the folks would ead the other
group).
If we go to requiring follow-ups for ANY cross posting, I would
respectfully ask that all the lugnet.loc.nc.city groups be closed. Why?
The real stuff occurs in lugnet.loc.nc, and I don't want to have to go
through painful processes to keep stuff fully cross posted in that
hierarchy when necessary (actually, even without a new requirement for
FUT on cross posting, I'd still say that those groups need to be
closed).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
| (...) 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)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
