jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) (11/23/89)
From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): > Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer > afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. This person finds the bandwidth in comp.lang.c too much, but adds to it in a way that benefits nobody but himself. Others following comp.lang.c will (if he gets his way) see only his message and the replies will (he hopes) go straight to him. Do others feel this to be a breach of etiquette? I think a proper response is to send E-mail to posters like this saying these postings occupy that same bandwidth they already find intolerably crowded, contribute nothing and should not be made. I am reluctant to do this until I have a "sense of the net" that my feelings are generally shared. -- Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Joe Weening) (11/23/89)
In article <1989Nov22.195020.805@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): > Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer > afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. ... If the person had said: "please mail replies to me, and I'll summarize", the effect would be the same, but you'd probably not be irritated. So I just ignore these comments; they're harmless. -- Joe Weening Computer Science Dept. weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Stanford University
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/23/89)
>From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): >> Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer >> afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. >I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. >This person finds the bandwidth in comp.lang.c too much, but adds to >it in a way that benefits nobody but himself. >Do others feel this to be a breach of etiquette? >I think a proper response is to send E-mail to posters like this >saying these postings occupy that same bandwidth they already find >intolerably crowded, contribute nothing and should not be made. It is definitely a breach of etiquette, because most of the time the answer has usually been covered recently and if they'd bothered to read the group they would have already had it. I also feel that a group is a cooperative thing -- you take some things out, you put some things back in. If you don't read the group, you don't contribute -- so why should I bother to help? My answer to requests like this is really simple: silence, even if I have the answer. I don't bother sending mail to these folks, because I don't feel like wasting my time, and generally I've found they don't care, so I'm sending email into a void. If you don't like what someone is doing, then don't encourage it. I don't think you need to yell at them -- silence is sometimes louder than words. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes is one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) (11/23/89)
jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: | From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): | > Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer | > afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. | I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. | Do others feel this to be a breach of etiquette? yes, I do... | I think a proper response is to send E-mail to posters like this | saying these postings occupy that same bandwidth they already find | intolerably crowded, contribute nothing and should not be made. I am | reluctant to do this until I have a "sense of the net" that my | feelings are generally shared. I don't think it terribly rude to post a message, say, on a freind's account, then say that you don't have net access--then direct replies to your own address (the one that has no news access) But Why should I have to look at your crap asking for special privs when the info you ask for might benefit others? nrg -- "Philosophy is not the underlabourer of the sciences but rather their tribunal; it adjudicates not the truth of scientific theorizing, but the sense of scientific propositions." -- PMS Hacker
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (11/23/89)
In article <1989Nov22.195020.805@algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: >From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): >> Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer >> afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. > >I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. ... >Do others feel this to be a breach of etiquette? Absolutely. Anyone presuming to add to a newsgroup's bandwidth has the responsibility to read it and check for followups, if only for a while. There is nothing wrong with requesting mailed responses, in fact it's usually the right way to go -- but bragging that one doesn't read the group posted to is just rude. Even where bandwidth truly is huge, it's the work of a moment to build a KILL file that picks out only your followups. Unfortunately there is an infinite fresh supply of people who don't understand this. Education helps but it'll still happen. I forget whether Emily Postnews covers this point, but she should. -- When I was [in Canada] I found their jokes like their | Tom Neff roads -- not very long and not very good, leading to a | tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET little tin point of a spire which has been remorselessly obvious for miles without seeming to get any nearer. -- Samuel Butler.
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (11/23/89)
From article <1989Nov22.195020.805@algor2.algorists.com>, by jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler): > From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): > >> Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer >> afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. > > I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. > ... > Do others feel this to be a breach of etiquette? Yes or no. Either way, I would like to distinguish the "don't want to read this group" postings from the "can't read this group" postings. For the unaware, not all sites get a complete news feed. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. aqdata!sullivan@jarthur.claremont.edu San Dimas, CA
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) (11/23/89)
I have a different perspective. It's not that I refuse to read group a.b.c, but I often MISS many articles. 1) This feed has (IMHO) short expires (several day, typ) 2) I travel. Lots! And to places where PC Pursuit and sometimes even POTS does not reach. Even if it did, I cannot afford the 4 hours/night I spend keeping up when I am in Bogota, Martinique, or Havana (have you EVER tried to talk to Cuba on the phone??) 3) If I post anything, any replies will be long gone by the time I get back. Granted, my circumstances may be unique, but I doubt it. While I agree it is rude to post to groups you can't bother to read, I don't think it is rude at all to ask for email replies. Besides, Emily Postnews recommends it.... BTW, please don't think I am complaining about my feed. If their expire was longer, I would never catch up when I get back;-} -- A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335
brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) (11/23/89)
In an article, jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler) wrote: >From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): > > Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer > > afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. >I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. >This person finds the bandwidth in comp.lang.c too much, but adds to >it in a way that benefits nobody but himself. Others following >comp.lang.c will (if he gets his way) see only his message and the >replies will (he hopes) go straight to him. The poster should have rephrased it to avoid offending touchy people. Say "send mail to me and I'll summarize to the net", which is really the right thing to do when posting an inquiry. If you don't ever post the summary, you've lied. If you do post the summary, you've done The Right Thing according to Usenet protocol. In either case, you don't have to read all the blather in the newsgroup, and you have an instant litmus test as to the intelligence of the people responding to your inquiry - the ones who post the answer anyway are obviously too stupid to understand the concept of summarized responses. - Brian "Reality is harsh, eh monkey boy?"
jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) (11/23/89)
BK> Article <10163@ucsd.Edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) JK> Article from jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler) ??> Article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which) ??> Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer ??> afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. JK> I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me JK> terribly. This person finds the bandwidth in comp.lang.c too JK> much, but adds to it in a way that benefits nobody but himself. JK> Others following comp.lang.c will (if he gets his way) see only JK> his message and the replies will (he hopes) go straight to him. BK> Say "send mail to me and I'll summarize to the net", which is BK> really the right thing to do when posting an inquiry. If you BK> don't ever post the summary, you've lied. If you do post the BK> summary, you've done The Right Thing according to Usenet protocol. BK> In either case, you don't have to read all the blather in the BK> newsgroup, and you have an instant litmus test as to the BK> intelligence of the people responding to your inquiry - the ones BK> who post the answer anyway are obviously too stupid to understand BK> the concept of summarized responses. Actually for this and other reasons, I also dislike (to a lesser degree) "please E-mail and I will summarize" messages. In my first posting after a long absence from the net (5 years) I read as much of Emily Postnews as I could digest and following her advice, asked for responses to summarize. I will never do so again. I believe that summarizations kill potentially useful discussion. The back and forth which is one of the major benefits of the net over, say, magazines is eliminated. The summarizer is the person who is likely to have the poorest understanding of the issue (unless he asked a question he knows the answer to). If he simply reposts all that he received in the "summary", there result is a message that is long, newsreader-hostile and hard to read. If he redacts it, the result is still often too long, and has no value added. Imagine a poster to comp.lang.c asking one of the Great Pointer Questions and then "summarizing" Chris Torek's response! -- Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (11/24/89)
In article <36732@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): > >>> Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer >>> afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. > >>I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. >>This person finds the bandwidth in comp.lang.c too much, but adds to >>it in a way that benefits nobody but himself. > >>Do others feel this to be a breach of etiquette? > >>I think a proper response is to send E-mail to posters like this >>saying these postings occupy that same bandwidth they already find >>intolerably crowded, contribute nothing and should not be made. > >It is definitely a breach of etiquette, because most of the time the answer >has usually been covered recently and if they'd bothered to read the group >they would have already had it. > >I also feel that a group is a cooperative thing -- you take some things out, >you put some things back in. If you don't read the group, you don't >contribute -- so why should I bother to help? > >My answer to requests like this is really simple: silence, even if I have >the answer. I don't bother sending mail to these folks, because I don't feel >like wasting my time, and generally I've found they don't care, so I'm >sending email into a void. > >If you don't like what someone is doing, then don't encourage it. I don't >think you need to yell at them -- silence is sometimes louder than words. > >Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA >chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] How about: "Please mail replies because I'm hopelessly behind in this group, and if you reply by posting without mailing also there's a fair chance your article will expire before I get a chance to read it."? I believe that Usenet is a give-and-take, surely. However, most sites are now expiring sooner and sooner. This means that many readers only get a sample of the discussion, not the entire text. There's a similar problem with offers-to-summarize. Producing a good summary isn't easy, and may not seem worthwhile if you haven't gotten much new information. One thing on the net that really annoys me is when a 'summary' turns out to be a copy of the mailbox file, complete with 'Received' headers and totally worthless messages. -- Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,ll-xn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}
paul@deadpup.UUCP (paul) (11/25/89)
In article <1989Nov22.195020.805@algor2.algorists.com>, jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: > From a article in comp.lang.c (no need to identify which): > > > Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer > > afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. > > I see this sort of thing all the time and it irritates me terribly. > This person finds the bandwidth in comp.lang.c too much, but adds to > it in a way that benefits nobody but himself. Others following > comp.lang.c will (if he gets his way) see only his message and the > replies will (he hopes) go straight to him. Actually, I sympathize with the gentleman who can't wade through c.l.c. I've stopped reading a number of groups where I am interested in the discussion and have information to offer, but just can't affort to wade through all the noise. I personally feel that such requests are worthy of an accurate reply if at all possible, but I am far more likely to attempt a reply if such a request is phrased like: I do not normally read this group, so please repond by mail and I will summarize to the net. This implies that the poster is willing to do a bit of work, and indicates that the accumulated knowledge from the net will be returned in a compact useable form for general consumption. Paul J. Mech oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU!deadpup!paul uiucuxc!oucs!oucsace!deadpup!paul { CAUTION: some reply generated paths end on oucsace and are lost. }
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (11/26/89)
> > Please mail replys to one of the addresses below - I can no longer > > afford the time to wade through all of comp.lang.c. > Do others feel this to be a breach of etiquette? No, I think it's more a sign of net-inexperience. An experienced poster would say, "Please mail replies to me, and I'll summarize", and do so. If the query had not included the contentious sentence, you would have emailed any reply anyway; posted replies to questions of fact, except from people with special expertise, are themselves a breach of etiquette because they are very likely to be duplicates. (The worst problem in groups like comp.lang.c is inappropriate responses, not inappropriate queries. This is exactly why the "semi-moderation" proposal has some appeal, though I'm not sure whether or not I think it's worth trying.) So in the actual case, simply email your reply (assuming that you were going to), and in that reply remind the questioner that it's good etiquette to post a summary of responses. Relax; no problem. If you don't see a followup within a week or so, THEN you're entitled to be annoyed, but keep your complaints to email also. -- Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., "Verbose better." Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- David M. Sherman This article is in the public domain.
unhd (Raphael Malyankar) (11/28/89)
jeffrey@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM (Jeffrey Kegler) writes: >I believe that summarizations kill potentially useful discussion. The >back and forth which is one of the major benefits of the net over, >say, magazines is eliminated. and >The summarizer is the person who is likely to have the poorest >understanding of the issue (unless he asked a question he knows the >answer to). If he simply reposts all that he received in the I suppose this depends. If you are asking for information like, say, books or articles on some topic, surely it's better to avoid the inevitable multiple postings mentioning the same book? And hopefully you will learn enough from the mail you get to post an intelligent summary... [You've got a point, but I don't think it holds all the time.] >Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc. -- Raphael Malyankar rmm@unhd.unh.edu uunet!unhd!rmm