logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) (01/24/89)
Based upon my observations, I recommend the following changes to
net etiquette (netiquette.)
1.) It is presently recommended that answers to questions be routed via
private posts.
The effect of this is that crummy answers by un-informed users get
posted publicly and the gems (what this whole net is about) get sent
privately. I see lots of questions that people ask that I also would
like to see the answer to. Most net readers are browsers (due to time
constraints) and would benefit from seeing answers to interesting
questions.
While it is true that we risk the reception of multiple similar answers,
I think such duplication is dwarfed by the volume of other ranting and
raving. How can we hope to improve the S/N by attenuating the only thing
which we have control over (the signal!)
Therefore I recommend that if you know the answer, and are so motivated
to enter it, to post it as a follow-up and not as e-mail to the questioner.
2.) The defenders of the Net often post BROADCAST messages of the form:
You are an (----- subtle insult goes here) for carrying on this discussion
in this group. Please move this discussion to xyzzy group.
Then they go on to say:
Please post follow-ups to abcdef group. (or /dev/null if they are in a nasty
mood.)
Well folks, this is the height of hypocrisy. You cannot broadcast such
messages and then expect the recipient to adhere to a higher standard than
you. It is insufficient to justify hypocrisy merely because it serves our
convenience!
Net Police should first send private request to their identified
offenders. And unless they enjoy counter-productive efforts, they ought
to avoid the scolding, high handed attitude that seems universal in such
postings. (Such as I am doing right now :-)
--
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -
- ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / logajan@ns.network.com / john@logajan.mn.org -vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) (01/24/89)
[Logajan] # 1.) It is presently recommended that answers to questions be routed via # private posts. # # The effect of this is that crummy answers by un-informed users get # posted publicly and the gems (what this whole net is about) get sent # privately. You miss the point. The recommendation in current netiquette is not "ask for private responses," it's "ask for private responses and offer to mail or post a summary if there is sufficient interest." What "sufficient interest" means here is that the folks who want to see the answer should _also_ send mail to the person asking the question, since the questioner is going to have the answer, probably very soon, and probably from many different sources. The effect is that all of the non-unique answers are later posted under a single non-drifting Subject: and further discussion, if any, begins at the point where almost every dissenting view is already known. The point of the suggestion is to reduce traffic to a _readable_ level. It has worked well; some groups previously feared lost to the dark side now have a S/N ratio high enough to make misinformed posts stand out quite sorely. # Therefore I recommend that if you know the answer, and are so motivated # to enter it, to post it as a follow-up and not as e-mail to the # questioner. And therefore I recommend that if you know an answer, you mail it to the person who asked the question, with the suggestion (unless the questioner has already stated such an intention) that they post a summary if interest warrants it. # 2.) The defenders of the Net often post BROADCAST messages of the form: # # "You are an <<insult>> for carrying on this discussion in this group. # Please move this discussion to xyzzy group. [...] Please post # follow-ups to abcdef group. (or /dev/null)" # # Well folks, this is the height of hypocrisy. You cannot broadcast such # messages and then expect the recipient to adhere to a higher standard # than you. It is insufficient to justify hypocrisy merely because it # serves our convenience! Again, you miss the point. If you only posted your suggestion in the group you think the discussion ought to move to, noone in the "wrong" group would see it. Someone who is trying to redirect a discussion to another group is _not_ breaking their own injunction -- as a libertarian, you can think of this as "retaliatory use of force", different from "first use of force". -- Paul Vixie Work: vixie@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!vixie +1 415 853 6600 Play: paul@vixie.sf.ca.us vixie!paul +1 415 864 7013
jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) (01/25/89)
In article <1084@ns.UUCP> John Logajan recommends posting follow-up
articles instead of e-mail responses to interesting questions. In
addition to the facts he sited, the current etiquette causes a large
number of "I would like that information too" articles to be posted.
Since the secondary questioners can never be quite sure that everything
is being forwarded; it is likely to prompt another request for
information to the net, and so on.
Since information sent by e-mail is not subject to peer review, as are
usenet articles, the questioner may not get the very best answer that is
possible. Since netlanders do not become educated, there is a good
chance for an incorrect response to be posted when the question next
appears.
The probability of providing the first correct e-mail response is fairly
small. The gods of netland, being fairly busy, tend not to bother. It
then becomes increasingly probable that the questioner won't get a
correct answer. He or she will then have to post a "I didn't get an
answer to my question" posting.
Mr. Logajan seems to be against "BROADCASTING messages" by the defenders
of the Net. I believe that is in agreement with "current Netiquette".
The two most flagrant errors, conducting the same discussion in two or
more newsgroups and cross-posting to newsgroups where the material is
irrelevant, are perpetuated because most posters only follow up to
existing articles and know or care little about the arcane headers
utilized by the News software. I believe that postings by the "Net
police, (Mr. Logajan's term)", that contain the salient quotations,
some enlightened analysis, AND the correct header information, could
bring the discussion into line. Again, no change of Netiquette.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865
uunet!visdc!jiiiaem@ibiza.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) (01/26/89)
In <1084@ns.UUCP>, <logajan@ns.UUCP> wrote: >1.) It is presently recommended that answers to questions be routed via > private posts. > The effect of this is that crummy answers by un-informed users get > posted publicly and the gems (what this whole net is about) get sent > privately. The obvious solution, then, is to have all "un-informed users" send their "crummy answers" by private email. Every large newsgroup should have a "most frequently asked questions" list which can be posted monthly to head off too many repeats. >2.) The defenders of the Net often post BROADCAST messages of the form: aka net.police >You are an (----- subtle insult goes here) for carrying on this discussion >in this group. Please move this discussion to xyzzy group. Hey, *I've* done that! (But I'm just a lowly net.flatfoot) > Net Police should first send private request to their identified > offenders. And unless they enjoy counter-productive efforts, they ought > to avoid the scolding, high handed attitude that seems universal in such > postings. (Such as I am doing right now :-) Quite right. aem a.e.mossberg aem@mthvax.miami.edu MIAVAX::AEM (Span) aem@umiami.BITNET (soon) All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. - Noam Chomsky
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/27/89)
Here's what would happen if we encouraged people to post answers to questions -- all the intelligent people would stop reading the groups, and this would ensure that only stupid answers got posted. We actually are getting people a bit better trained at providing replies by mail. Please let's not reverse it. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473