gwh@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (07/06/90)
I would like to suggest that whoever writes the next generation of news
software, and anyone doing a new news reader, make an itsy bitsy little
addition:
Anyone posting a followup that will either
Appear in more than one newsgroup, or
Be redirected to another newsgroup, or both
Get the following warning message along with the current "Sure you want to
do this?" :
This followup is being sent to newsgroups: {list}
Please do not followup to inappropriate newsgroups.
Followup in newsgroup: {xyz} ? [yn]:
and repeat that line for each newsgroup that the followup is to, deleting
from the list any group that you don't respond with 'y'.
I'm not familliar enough with the current news software to suggest where
patches to do this ought to go, bu it might be a good project for someone.
-george
== George William Herbert == Quantum Mechanics can explain everything
== JOAT for Hire: Anything, == except Madonna, Flame Wars, and NASA's space
=======Anywhere, My Price.======= Policy. We're working on the first two...
== gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu == :::"Gee, I Hope that wasn't a hostage...":::
== ucbvax!ocf!gwh == The OCF Gang: Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Todayfoster@jumbly.enet.dec.com (Steven Fruitbat Foster) (07/06/90)
In article <37429@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, gwh@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes... >Get the following warning message along with the current "Sure you want to >do this?" : Are you *really* sure you want to do this? You didn't flame anybody *too* badly, did you? You've read the guidelines for new users recently, haven't you? You aren't telling little fibs in reply to these questions? Have you signed the disclaimer saying "I warned you"? OK, on your own head be it... Article posted. It's a well-documented feature of human beings that when they become familiar with these questions, they just type 'y' unconciously, without thinking about it. Hands up all those who typed 'y' in the middle of deleting some of twenty files, and meant 'n'? Yes, I thought so. The newsreader (nasty thing though it was) wouldn't let you do anything for the first time unless you read three tons of introductory warnings. This, to me, is a much more preferable method than making me automatically press 'y' one more time. Fruitbat. PS: Of course, I've built an extra question into my editor macro... :^P +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Steve Fruitbat Foster | foster@jumbly.enet.dec.com [+@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay]| | Digital Equipment Corp. +--------------------------------------------------| | Reading, UK. | These opinions are not necessarily those of DEC, | | **STUFF THE POLL TAX** | my assorted cuddly toys or anybody whatsoever. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ %MATHLIB-E-FLOOVIMAT, Fruitbat debauched overflow error in !AS -RMS-I-MEEP, Error when trying to insert mars bar sideways.
bote@csense.uucp (John Boteler) (07/13/90)
From article <37429@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, by gwh@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert): > I would like to suggest that whoever writes the next generation of news > software, and anyone doing a new news reader, make an itsy bitsy little > > Get the following warning message along with the current "Sure you want to > do this?" : Forget the message. Force the followup into one and only one newsgroup, as appropriate. As I remember from the deep, dark bnews days, that was the default action. If the newsreader gurus don't want to implement this, should be simple to implement in Cnews' 'inews' script: take the article in the background, chew off the extra newsgroups, and spit it out to the world concerned with the topic. If it never gets there, the poster will be forced to think next time. -- John Boteler {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (07/15/90)
In article <1990Jul12.201422.883@csense.uucp>, bote@csense.uucp (John Boteler) writes: > Forget the message. Force the followup into one and only one newsgroup, > as appropriate. > > As I remember from the deep, dark bnews days, that was the default > action. > > If the newsreader gurus don't want to implement this, should be simple > to implement in Cnews' 'inews' script: take the article in the background, > chew off the extra newsgroups, and spit it out to the world concerned > with the topic. If it never gets there, the poster will be forced to > think next time. I suspect what will happen is multipostings ... the status quo at some sites, altho not all, saves the reader from seeing the 2nd and so on copy of a crossposting. With multiposts, tho, that advantage would be lost. Jeff -- "...cops and reporters are much alike. Both are absolutely dedicated to doing the job at hand, regardless of obstacles. And both, deep down, really believe the rules don't apply to them". -- Jim Barlow, Houston Chronicle --
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (07/15/90)
>Forget the message. Force the followup into one and only one newsgroup, >as appropriate. > Followups should clearly not be forced into a single group. Any thread that still pertains to a group should stay there. If you don't agree, well, think about it some more. I do agree that a warning message would be a good idea. Certainly for articles crossposted to > n newsgroups (for some n). -- Jon Zeeff (NIC handle JZ) zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
flee@guardian.cs.psu.edu (Felix Lee) (07/15/90)
>Forget the message. Force the followup into one and only one newsgroup, >as appropriate. The hard part is the "as appropriate". Some versions of B News will automatically add a "Followup-To:" line to cross-posted articles so that followups default to one newsgroup. This can make it terribly difficult to follow a discussion. One example is the "ETA saga" discussion, where the Newsgroups line mutated among comp.sys.super, comp.sys.cdc, comp.unix.cray, and comp.arch. comp.arch is where I saw the start of it, but I had a hard time trying to find the rest when it shifted away from comp.arch. And then there was the time I saw discussions about NULL happening in parallel in three newsgroups at the same time, all of them diverging and converging on the same issues, all entirely distinct threads. This is likely to get worse, with events like the splitting of comp.sys.mac and comp.sys.ibm. Topics that don't properly belong to a single newsgroup should be allowed to roam freely. Rather than trying to limit the diversity of Usenet, why not work at building better newsreader programs? -- Felix Lee flee@cs.psu.edu
pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie) (07/16/90)
In article <1990Jul12.201422.883@csense.uucp> bote@csense.uucp (John Boteler) writes: [ discussing cross-posting followups ] >Forget the message. Force the followup into one and only one newsgroup, >as appropriate. As long as the software defaults to the newsgroup I'm reading. My software already chops off the extra newsgroups, leaving the first in the line, which often isn't the group I'm reading, and usually isn't even a group fed to my machine. -- Pete Hardie mail: ...!emory!stiatl!slammer!nyet!pete "Well, Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, And Lightness has a call that's hard to hear" -- Indigo Girls
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/16/90)
In article <1990Jul12.201422.883@csense.uucp> bote@csense.uucp (John Boteler) writes: > Forget the message. Force the followup into one and only one newsgroup, > as appropriate. No. Sometimes crossposting, even on followups, is the appropriate thing to do. It keeps a discussion that fits into more than one group from turning into two (or more) equal-sized discussions in as many groups. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (07/16/90)
In article <ZTO4QNG@ggpc2.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
No. Sometimes crossposting, even on followups, is the appropriate thing to do.
It keeps a discussion that fits into more than one group from turning into
two (or more) equal-sized discussions in as many groups.
The question is not what is to be possible, the question is what is to
be easy. This is a matter of news reader policy, not news relay
policy. The things that shovel the bits from machine to machine
should be largely absent of policies, esp. those embedded in binaries.
That which is presented to the user should have reasonable but
configurable defaults.
Followups would go to one of news.software.{nn,rn}, gnu.emacs.{gnews,gnus},
or whatever other group handles the spillover of news.software.policy as
opposed to news.software.technology.
--Ed
Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept <emv@math.lsa.umich.edu>
comp.archives moderatorpeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/16/90)
In article <EMV.90Jul15230502@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: > In article <ZTO4QNG@ggpc2.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > No. Sometimes crossposting, even on followups, is the appropriate thing to > > do. It keeps a discussion that fits into more than one group from turning > > into two (or more) equal-sized discussions in as many groups. > The question is not what is to be possible, the question is what is to > be easy. I don't think that's the question at all. If you make followups to multiple groups hard it's the same thing, from the point of view of avoiding multiple copies of the same flame war^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion in a bunch of separate groups, as making it impossible. The first time someone does a followup to one group by default you'll have two conversations on the same topic, rehashing the same points over and over again. After a while you see free-floating riots^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussions taking over 3 or 4 groups. > That which is presented to the user should have reasonable but > configurable defaults. Which is the case now. > Followups would go to one of news.software.{nn,rn}, gnu.emacs.{gnews,gnus}, > or whatever other group handles the spillover of news.software.policy as > opposed to news.software.technology. As long as you're considering a technological fix to a political problem it's appropriate to crosspost the discussion to both places. If it becomes obvious that this is one or the other we can narrow the scope. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (07/17/90)
bote@csense.uucp writes: > Forget the message. Force the followup into one and only one newsgroup, > as appropriate. Better yet, use a news reader that will cache message ids and not show you a message more than once. That way it doesn't matter if the message is crossposted. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]