msb@sq.UUCP (10/14/87)
[{...} designates opinions]
Bruce Barnett and Brandon Allbery have discussed the topic of reducing
inappropriate cross-postings, in articles cross-posted to news.admin
and news.software.b. As this {is} as an inappropriate cross-posting,
I am now adding news.misc, where the topic {belongs}, and redirecting
followups there.
Bruce and Brandon suggest that the news software should support the
notion of "primary newsgroup". This is {bad}. If an article is on the
topic of travel to C-speaking countries, it is EQUALLY appropriate for
both rec.travel and comp.lang.c, and so are any followups as long as
they stay on that topic. If the followups only go to one newsgroup,
interested people who don't subscribe to both groups may miss them.
When the topic drifts to travel in general, then {and only then} should
the newsgroup list be restricted to rec.travel; if the drift is the other
way, to a C-language topic, then the list should be restricted to comp.lang.c.
I do support the use of better software to restrict indiscriminate cross-
posted followups, but "primary newsgroup" {isn't} the way to do it.
{Obviously better} is to have the software that posts followups detect
the cross-posting case and interactively prompt the poster as to whether
to include each newsgroup, as someone else suggested recently.
Is this article still appropriate for each of:
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.misc
? [ny] y
REALLY? [ny] n # oh, all right
Include soc.men? [ny] y
Include soc.women? [ny] y
Include soc.misc? [ny] n
Such intelligent software {should} also warn when a Followup-To: line is
different from a Newsgroups: line, for it is the followupper's prerogative
to ignore the original poster's Followup-To:, as I did here, if they feel
it was badly chosen; but to do so they first have to notice that it exists.
Since most news is not archived, the impact of different methods on the
archiving {is} of lesser importance than the impact on normal reading.
Anyway, a sensible archiving system {ought} to handle cross-postings
properly in the first place.
Others' opinions on the value of these contrasting approaches, and others,
are invited...in news.misc.
Mark Brader I've always wanted to be a mad scientist!
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto Or perhaps just mad!
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Robert L. Biddlemsb@sq.UUCP (10/15/87)
When I wrote: > ... have the software that posts followups detect > the cross-posting case and interactively prompt the poster as to whether > to include each newsgroup, as someone else suggested recently. > > Is this article still appropriate for each of: > Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,soc.misc > ? [ny] y > REALLY? [ny] n # oh, all right I thought it was obvious that this action should occur *after* the article has been composed. David Sherman (the lsuc!dave one) has pointed out to me that it may not be obvious to everyone, hence this article to point out that, um, point. We now return you to your regular nettishness... Mark Brader "You read war books -- people shooting each other, Toronto people bombing each other, people torturing each utzoo!sq!msb other. I like to look at people doing, uh, naughty msb@sq.com things to each other!" -- Ria, "Butterflies"
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/15/87)
>Bruce and Brandon suggest that the news software should support the >notion of "primary newsgroup". This is {bad}. If an article is on the >topic of travel to C-speaking countries, it is EQUALLY appropriate for >both rec.travel and comp.lang.c, and so are any followups as long as >they stay on that topic. If the followups only go to one newsgroup, >interested people who don't subscribe to both groups may miss them. I think a primary group is good. I suggested exactly that a couple of years ago. You simply modify postnews and Pnews to send a followup to one of the following: o the list of grousp in Followup-To: o The first group in the Newsgroup: lin currently this is what they do, except the second rule is ALL groups instead of the frist group in Newsgroup. The user, as always, can override if the want, and if the original poster wants to keep a wider distribution they can choose to do so. Realistically, there is little need to widely spread followups. An riginal posting can be spread around to let people know that a conversation has started, but they should then decided on a place to finish it. You don't carry on a conversation at a party by standing in all four corners of a room and yelling at each other, do you? chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Editor, OtherRealms Delphi: CHUQ
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett) (10/15/87)
in <2701@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP> I (Bruce Barnett) wrote: } May I suggest that when more than one newsgroup is in the reply, } the posting program list the newsgroups and the description of each } newsgroup (grep'ing on /usr/lib/news/newsgroup) and then ask the } poster if she/he wants to exclude any newsgroups and/or } request followup's to one primary newsgroup? } } Another idea: perhaps Rev C news, ( or next version of RN) should } stress the idea of primary newsgroup (i.e. the first newsgroup in the } list). I use savenews (aka keepnews) to archive articles, and it only } stores one copy under the first newsgroup on the newsgroup line. In article <1987Oct14.021942.22522@sq.uucp> msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: | |[{...} designates opinions] |Bruce and Brandon suggest that the news software should support the |notion of "primary newsgroup". This is {bad}. If an article is on the |topic of travel to C-speaking countries, it is EQUALLY appropriate for |both rec.travel and comp.lang.c, and so are any followups as long as |they stay on that topic. If the followups only go to one newsgroup, |interested people who don't subscribe to both groups may miss them. As I proposed, I was just suggesting that when there is more than one newsgroup, the poster consider which newsgroup is the most appropriate one. Since news doesn't handle classes of newsgroups, the primary one is simply the first newsgroup on the list of newsgroups. Period. I was suggesting that: 1. The poster think about the article and 2. give a very mild emphasis on the newsgroup where this discussion most likely belongs - if the topic seems to be drifting from one newsgroup to another. 3. Optionally reduce the number of newsgroups 4. Optionally add a followup to the most appropriate newsgroup. Note that I said OPTIONALLY. I never suggested that a followup is MANDATORY, Mark. Unless the newsgroup 'weeding' is easy to the poster, it won't work. I do not have any answers, unfortunately. But in order to stimulate conversation - I will throw up another strawman. ( what a revolting image :-) First - there should be a newsgroup soft limit user when posting a FOLLOWUP article. If the number of newsgroups are greater than N, then the weeding process is executed. (Perhaps this could be user setable, with the default value being 3.) Example: Newsgroups: news.misc,misc.misc,comp.misc,news.groups,news.admin,news.sysadmin The sample interface is: --------------------------------------------- Warning - 3 or more newsgroups in the followup article you posted. The newsgroups you have posted to are: (a) news.misc Discussions of USENET itself. (b) misc.misc Various discussions not fitting in any other group. (c) comp.misc General topics about computers not covered elsewhere. (d) news.groups Discussions and lists of newsgroups. (e) news.sysadmin Comments directed to system administrators. (f) news.admin Comments directed to news administrators. Which newsgroup is the most appropriate newsgroup (a): Newsgroups to eliminate - by letters ( ): Followup responses go to: --------------------------------- End of example The intention is that the poster can specify the newsgroups by the letters or by the actual names. The default reply of <return><return><return> changes nothing. But it does make them thing twice about a followup to a large number of groups. ---------------------------------------------------- |Since most news is not archived, the impact of different methods on the |archiving {is} of lesser importance than the impact on normal reading. |Anyway, a sensible archiving system {ought} to handle cross-postings |properly in the first place. Again - changing the order of the newsgroups in the Newsgroups: line has very little impact on someone READING the newsgroup. There is, perhaps, more effort when POSTING with this scheme. The suggestion of the primary newsgroup has two benefits: 1. It makes people think TWICE before posting followups to inappropriate newsgroups. Perhaps news readers could use this too - somehow. Ideas, anyone? 2. It makes archiving of news easier. If you haven't tried to maintain 64686 DIFFERENT articles on a disk that is 98% full, you haven't lived :-). True an INTELLIGENT news archive would be able to tell me when a source program is in rec.music.maker and not *.sources, but I don't have one of those. I do have some 'weed' scripts, but these also take time on my part. I am more likely to start purging newsgroups like rec.* when disk space gets tight. And I agree with Chuq (the author of keepnews) that keeping only one copy of a cross-posted newsgroup (instead of one per EACH newsgroup) is a win. Again - don't knock it till you have tried it - with a disk filled with 200Meg of old news - Searching for that one article in the wrong newsgroup - with the wrong Subject line - that was posted 'about' six months ago. ARRRGH! | |Mark Brader I've always wanted to be a mad scientist! |SoftQuad Inc., Toronto Or perhaps just mad! |utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Robert L. Biddle -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP> uunet!steinmetz!barnett
dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) (10/16/87)
Instead of followups to an article being posted to the first group on the newsgroups line by default, how about posting the followup to the group the user was reading when he issued the followup command? After all, that's where the average user *expects* the followup to go. The less the software surprises the user, the better. -- David Canzi
karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) (10/16/87)
In article <30954@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >I think a primary group is good. I suggested exactly that a couple of years >ago. You simply modify postnews and Pnews to send a followup to [the groups >listed in "Followup-To:", if any; else the FIRST group in "Newsgroups:"]. >The user, as always, can override ... I disagree (and, in fact, agree with Mark Brader). As I see it, the problem is that the current scheme of automatically cross-posting followups is SILENT. Most users don't realize that they are doing so, as evidenced by the frequent use of the phrase "this newsgroup". A sufficiently observant user can override the default in either your proposal or Mark's, so let's see what happens in the case of the careless cross-poster. (Sounds like a mystery title!) Mark suggests that the software should inform the user and let him interactively select the appropriate newsgroups. Your proposal would, in effect, select a random newsgroup (possibly not the one the user is reading, or even subscribed to) for the followup. How can this be better? >Realistically, there is little need to widely spread followups. An riginal >posting can be spread around to let people know that a conversation has >started, but they should then decided on a place to finish it. I agree with the general principle, but not your implementation. I think quite a bit of cross-posting would go away simply by making the users aware. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) (10/19/87)
in article <3965@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) says: > how about posting the followup to the > group the user was reading when he issued the followup command? The problem with this is that different people will follow-up from different groups, and seperate instances of the same conversation will be going on simultaneously. Following up the the first newsgroup, by default, will keep the discussion centered in one group. -bill
msb@sq.UUCP (10/20/87)
Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@sun.UUCP) writes: > Realistically, there is little need to widely spread followups. An riginal > posting can be spread around to let people know that a conversation has > started, but they should then decided on a place to finish it. You don't > carry on a conversation at a party by standing in all four corners of a room > and yelling at each other, do you? No, I stand in all four corners of the room at once, and quietly talk to the people in each of them at the same time. I will then be heard by precisely all the people who are likely to be interested in what I am saying. If the topic is the use of symbolic algebra in the Beatles' songs, and I make only opening remarks in the rec.music.beatles corner before inviting that crowd over to the sci.math.symbolic corner, it doesn't follow that they'll follow. More likely they'll be put off by the vast volume of symbolic algebra people jabbering about non-Beatles that they're not interested in. And vice versa, if I do it the other way. Chuq's assumption is that a reader will be willing to subscribe to a group just because there is one interesting discussion there. But UNsubscribing is the feature that allows the net to work as well as it does with as large a volume as it does. Why try to defeat it when there are better ways to eliminate improper cross-postings? Remember, if the reader is already subscribed to all the groups in question, improper cross-postings are a minor nuisance, as the articles will only be seen once anyway under any sensible reading interface. (Thanks, Larry.) Mark Brader, Toronto "But I do't have a '' key o my termial." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Lynn Gold P.S. I would like to thank you all for apparently agreeing with me as to which group this topic belongs in!