root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) (06/04/88)
I would like to air one gripe that has been steadily building as I have been reading various posts on the question/advice oriented newsgroups. I have been running a public-access bbs under MSDOS for a large number of years now (for bbs standards large anyway), and it's also something I have been fighting on there. The trend is to ask a question, and then to finish it by saying "Please reply to E-mail/private mail as I am too busy to keep up with this conference/newsgroup." What's the result? Well, the result is a newsgroup in which you have lots and lots of questions, and no answers. The result is also that people stop reading the newsgroup, as nobody is really terribly interested in the questions. It's the answers and the advice people are reading it for. I find that often I have the answers to questions I read, but when I see the above request for private replies, I don't bother to reply to the question, private or public. Public because the person who asked the question already said he wouldn't be reading it, and private because I don't want to encourge such rather selfish attitudes. Think about it, ok? If you really want the question answered, the least you could do is to take the time to read the answer. Besides, if you read the newsgroup regularly, maybe you might learn something :-). Comments and Feedback encouraged, publicly to this newsgroup.
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (06/05/88)
>The trend is to ask a question, and then to finish it by saying "Please >reply to E-mail/private mail In my opinion, this doesn't happen OFTEN enough. The correct "netiquette" for this situation is the for question asker to say: "please MAIL replies, I will summarize". That way, there is only ONE answer, instead of 10 duplicate answers (which in my opinion are MUCH more boring than the questions). USENET is not a BBS system. There is as much as a week's delay from one end to the other. Try to remember that your answer may already be old news. If you MUST post a response, one good technique is to mark the question as unread, wait a day or so, then come back to it. If you don't see any replies, you might just have something to contribute! I almost ALWAYS mail rather than post an answer. I feel that if no one else answers the question publicly, and my answer is the best of those mailed, then the questioner will forward my response to the newsgroup. About the only time I post is when I must correct a WRONG answer that was posted! Unfortuntely, it is the people who really don't know the answer who are most likely to POST a response! If you see someone ask a question that you would like an answer to, simply send HIM mail, requesting that the answer be posted, or mailed to you directly. >Comments and Feedback encouraged, publicly to this newsgroup. Because of this, my response is posted. Otherwise, I would have MAILED it. -- john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com
ben@idsnh.UUCP (Ben Smith) (06/05/88)
Thankyou. I read for information more than I write. If there are only questions, I *DO* get bored and unsubscribe the group. -- Integrated Decision Systems, Inc. | Benjamin Smith - East Coast Tech. Office The fitting solution in professional | Peterborough, NH portfolio management software. | UUCP: uunet!idsnh!ben
ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) (06/05/88)
In article <50@uisc1.UUCP> root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) writes: > >The trend is to ask a question, and then to finish it by saying "Please >reply to E-mail/private mail as I am too busy to keep up with this >conference/newsgroup." > >What's the result? Well, the result is a newsgroup in which you have lots >and lots of questions, and no answers. The result is also that people >stop reading the newsgroup, as nobody is really terribly interested in >the questions. It's the answers and the advice people are reading it for. It often depends on the nature of the question. I had a question for comp.sys.amiga, regarding why a certain example program wouldn't work. I asked for EMAIL responses because I figured that the problem was something simple that I just didn't know about. I also stated that if there were enough requests, I would sumarize the information I received to the network. The nice thing about doing it this way is that you don't flood the newsgroup with a dozen identical responses to a simple question. If it turns out that it's not an obvious solution/problem, then the replier can opt to both post it *and* mail a response. >Comments and Feedback encouraged, publicly to this newsgroup. Ordinarily I would have mailed this reply to you, but you asked for it publicly so here it is. -- ...!hadron\ "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles ...!sundc\ Schedule: (n.) An ever changing | NetExpress Comm., Inc. ...!pyrdc\ nightmare. | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles | Vienna, VA 22180
nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) (06/06/88)
In article <50@uisc1.UUCP>, root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) writes: > I would like to air one gripe that has been steadily building [...] > > The trend is to ask a question, and then to finish it by saying "Please > reply to E-mail/private mail as I am too busy to keep up with this > conference/newsgroup." > > I find that often I have the answers to questions I read, but when I > see the above request for private replies, I don't bother to reply to > the question, private or public. I never reply either, for exactly the same reasons: if the questioner is too damn busy to read the newsgroup and watch for replies, then I am damn well too busy to bother with the question. I can find no excuse for this behavior, so I don't excuse it. If the article is a request for software, and I happen to have it handy, then I will mail it off to them -- but that's not the point here. The point of the net is information exchange, not private collection. (Can you say self-righteous? ... Guilty as charged.) -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (06/06/88)
"Super user" objects to people who ask for e-mail responses because they don't read the group, and John Nelson objects to something different. When the question is likely to generate some standard facts repeatedly, I agree with John. (I've taken to just saying I'll summarize any e-mail I get, since I think many/most people will post or e-mail as they choose anyway). "Super"'s point was that those who say "send me the answer because it's not worth my time to read this group" are being arrogant and rude (I guess that's redundant, but I've known people who wouldn't think so :-). I agree with this also. They are two different situations, but both are concerned with factual replies...even when the facts are wrong. I think postings are a more reasonable response when they involve matters of opinion -- then the whole thread has more the character of a _discussion_, and I think it's appropriate to throw it out in front of everyone (or no-one, occasionally). This topic is a case in point. (BTW, after noticing the newsgroups line, I'm trying to direct followups to comp.misc. Hope I got the header name correct.) -- -bob,mon "In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..."
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/07/88)
You guys are missing the whole point. You are SUPPOSED TO ANSWER WITH E-MAIL. Only in rare, very rare cases is it appropriate to post an answer to a query. Even if the person says, "Please post your response to the net" You are supposed to answer with E-mail. The poster made a mistake and was supposed to request answers by E-mail. Otherwise when somebody asks a moderatedly easy question, we get 20 responses posted to the net. Even if you can't E-mail the guy, you should still not post, unless you are very sure that yours is going to be the only answer, because the question is technical and in your field of expertise. If it's a regular question and your mail doesn't make it, somebody else's will. If a person asks a question, it is their duty to collect the duplicate answers, and post the best one back. (Not a collection of the answers, but a summary.) If you want to encourage that, when you see a question you would like to hear the answer to, send mail to the asker requesting that he or she send the answer back to you, or post it. If people follow these guidelines, we get a much cleaner net. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
woods@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Greg Woods) (06/07/88)
> From: root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) > Message-ID: <50@uisc1.UUCP> > Date: 4 Jun 88 09:44:47 GMT > Organization: Unicorn Information Systems Corp, Detroit, MI, USA > Lines: 26 > > I would like to air one gripe that has been steadily building as I have > been reading various posts on the question/advice oriented newsgroups. > I have been running a public-access bbs under MSDOS for a large number > of years now (for bbs standards large anyway), and it's also something > I have been fighting on there. > > The trend is to ask a question, and then to finish it by saying "Please > reply to E-mail/private mail as I am too busy to keep up with this > conference/newsgroup." The obvious comment at this point is: What's the problem with that, as long as the originator summarizes and posts the replies? This often the case on the net, though it definitely could be done more often. I doubt most micro-oriented BBS's enjoy the same frequency of summaries because of the inexperience of the vast majority of BBS users. The article by Harry Henderson in the Waite Group collection "Unix Papers" summarizes the proper etiquette (page 74: "Reply by Mail or Article?"). Though the entire section is quite applicable, the last two sentences sum it up best: "... when in doubt, use email. Many articles will remind readers to use E-mail for replies; such requests should be honored." If you are certain others will be interested in your reply, and you doubt it will be summarized, you are free to both mail and post it. > ... It's the answers and the advice people are reading it for. And that's the beauty of the Net. It is dynamic, and recurrences of questions are not frowned upon, as long as they are not too frequent. Even if a question does pop up too often, the asker(s) will usually be pointed in the right direction, though often none too politely. > ...if you read the newsgroup regularly, maybe you might learn something :-). You can't learn much from reading the same questions over and over! ;-) > Comments and Feedback encouraged, publicly to this newsgroup. "these newsgroups"? Though it may be relevant to all general discussion groups, I'm not sure this discussion belongs in them all. I'm no expert in Net Etiquette, but I have been bothered by this problem before. I only wish the everyone could be more considerate. -- Greg Woods. UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{cpcc, ontmoh, ontmoh!cpcc, tmsoft!cpcc}!woods VOICE: (416) 242-7572 [h] LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada -- Greg Woods. UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{cpcc, ontmoh, ontmoh!cpcc, tmsoft!cpcc}!woods VOICE: (416) 242-7572 [h] LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) (06/08/88)
In article <1718@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > You are supposed to answer with E-mail. The poster made a mistake and > was supposed to request answers by E-mail. > > Otherwise when somebody asks a moderatedly easy question, we get 20 > responses posted to the net. More to the point (I think Brad is being diplomatic), when somebody asks a moderately hard question (that LOOKS easy) we get 20 wrong responses posted to the net, sowing great confusion. Summaries are the way to go! (Admittedly, the phrasing "email me, BECAUSE I don't have time to read this group" is rather stupid.) -- Michael L. Siemon contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!mhuxu!mls standard disclaimer
greim@sbsvax.UUCP (Michael Greim) (06/10/88)
In article <50@uisc1.UUCP>, root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) writes: > ... > The trend is to ask a question, and then to finish it by saying "Please > reply to E-mail/private mail as I am too busy to keep up with this > conference/newsgroup." > > What's the result? Well, the result is a newsgroup in which you have lots > and lots of questions, and no answers. The result is also that people > stop reading the newsgroup, as nobody is really terribly interested in > the questions. It's the answers and the advice people are reading it for. I agree. > > I find that often I have the answers to questions I read, but when I > see the above request for private replies, I don't bother to reply to > the question, private or public. Public because the person who asked the > question already said he wouldn't be reading it, and private because I > don't want to encourge such rather selfish attitudes. Well, sometimes the answers to questions are so obvious that I rather e-mail them, so that the person who asked the question will not be embarrased too much. (Just yesterday I did the opposite and answered such a question in public. :-) The person who asked the question can do something : he can summarize the replies he got and post them to the net. I've seen this done several times, but I can also remember some cases where this was not done. (Some months ago I put a question to the net myself and did not summarize the replies. I thought nobody would be interested as it was a question on copyright of a certain piece of software, viz. CURSES. Maybe I should repent ??? :-) If the question was something like "what do you do to ..." or "How can you ..." I'd certainly make a summary. Michael -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | UUCP: ...!uunet!unido!sbsvax!greim | Michael T. Greim | | or greim@sbsvax.UUCP | Universitaet des Saarlandes | | CSNET: greim%sbsvax.uucp@Germany.CSnet| FB 10 - Informatik (Dept. of CS) | | ARPA: greim%sbsvax.uucp@uunet.UU.NET | Bau 36, Im Stadtwald 15 | | Phone: +49 681 302 2434 | D-6600 Saarbruecken 11, West Germany | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | # include <disclaimers/std.h> | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+