chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) (03/30/88)
In article <1509@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <25590@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> lisper-bjorn@CS.YALE.EDU (Bjorn Lisper) writes: >>Not to mention the obnoxious 50% rule for inclusion of earlier postings. >>(Fortunately this rule isn't enforced at my site.) > >We don't want to see long signatures with pictures, US Mail addresses, >phone numbers and quotes. We don't want to see articles where the >included material hasn't been compacted and summarized. "What do you mean `we', paleface?" Seriously, the only real effect of the 4-line rule has been to make posters include their signatures by hand. The only real effect of the 50% rule has been to force people to use their own quotation symbols. }}} You can't legislate politeness. {{{ >The big cost is the 3 seconds spent scanning and rejecting the useless >article. No argument here. But I think the solution lies in smart news readers that are sophisticated enough to recognize and hide quoted material and signatures. (I would like to bounce up and down a discussion chain; forget this "try to decode the mangled quote" business.) Note that if the 50% rule and the 4-line signature rule were not in effect, these time-saving reader algorithms would be trivial! But now that each news poster evades the rules in his own unique way, we need "smarter" news readers that cannot be completely successful. -- Chip Salzenberg "chip@ateng.UU.NET" or "codas!ateng!chip" A T Engineering My employer's opinions are a trade secret. "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't."
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (03/31/88)
>Seriously, the only real effect of the 4-line rule has been to make posters >include their signatures by hand. The only real effect of the 50% rule has >been to force people to use their own quotation symbols. I think this is untrue. Oh, sure, the experienced users know how to work around these limits. But the rules were put in place to keep down the noise from the UNexperienced users. Remember how many articles used to have 100 lines of text and a one line response? I remember! I think both of the above rules have improved USENET significantly. -- john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn ARPA (sort of): talcott.harvard.edu!panda!teddy!jpn
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (04/03/88)
In article <4688@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes:
<>Seriously, the only real effect of the 4-line rule has been to make posters
<>include their signatures by hand. The only real effect of the 50% rule has
<>been to force people to use their own quotation symbols.
<
<I think this is untrue.
<
<Oh, sure, the experienced users know how to work around these limits.
<But the rules were put in place to keep down the noise from the
<UNexperienced users. Remember how many articles used to have 100 lines
<of text and a one line response? I remember!
Right, now instead of seeing 100 lines of "quote" and 1 line of response
you get 100 lines of quote, 1 line of response and 100 lines of "inews fodder"
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."