brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/22/85)
It's been suggested that if RN didn't have an "F" command, people would just use editors. This is not the case. There was a massive increase in the amount of included text on the net with the introduction of RN. When I saw the "F" feature in an early release, I wrote an urgent message to Larry Wall begging him to take this feature out. He didn't agree that it would be as bad as I suggested. I suspect current trends prove me right. Remember the rule for USENET software design: Articles are posted once, but read a thousand times. Anything that makes it 1% easier for a reader and 500% harder for the poster is worth it. To my mind, this justifies moderators (as I have described them) and careful checks in posting software, along with a plethora of keywords. Right now the net is (roughly) reader-pays, so it should be reader driven. If you put in the option for poster-pays, this would change. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
ejnorman@uwmacc.UUCP (Eric Norman) (10/25/85)
In article <445@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >It's been suggested that if RN didn't have an "F" command, people would My mail reader-responder (on another system) includes the article so that I can read and respond to individual points, BUT, it normally deletes the original stuff before sending unless I explicitly save pieces of it. -- Eric Norman UUCP: ...{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!ejnorman Pony Express: 1210 West Dayton Street, Madison, WI 53706 Life: Detroit!Alexandria!Omaha!Indianapolis!Madison!Hyde "There ain't nothing so important what you can't poke fun at it." -- me
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/25/85)
In article <445@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >It's been suggested that if RN didn't have an "F" command, people would >just use editors. This is not the case. There was a massive increase >in the amount of included text on the net with the introduction of RN. The second sentence does not follow from the third. A number of people who habitually include all of a referenced article without bothering to edit it down any are on sites which apparently do not have rn (or at least, they appear not to use it). Rn probably has increased the amount of referencing, but the problem (unfortunately) lies in the people who post the articles. Those who are determined to reference are not going to be defeated by the trivial annoyance of having to explicitly include the reference. >Remember the rule for USENET software design: Articles are posted once, but >read a thousand times. Anything that makes it 1% easier for a reader and >500% harder for the poster is worth it. Unfortunately, one of the drivers of inclusion is the readers. It is often forgotten that news propagation is not instantaneous, and is indeed often quite slow around the edges of the net. I find it annoying (and this is a common occurance in groups like SF-lovers which have lots of novice users) to receive articles which refer to previous articles with giving me a clue as to what they said. Certainly inclusions should be the minimum possible; but it seems to me that they are necessary. I generally have some inclusion in most of my postings. I always attempt to cut out as much as possible (even to the point of trimming not only paragraphs but sentences within paragraphs). Rather than include a long series of replies, I attempt to summarize. If you read the nettiquette article, all these practices are recommended. Let me say a few words about some of the mentality behind some bad inclusions. First, the famous point-by-point rebuttal. Some people seem to feel it is necessary to put a paragraph of their own after every paragraph in the original, as if this were some sort of a argument in the street. To my mind it is much better to perhaps put in a short inclusion to set the tone, make a general reply, and then, if there are any specific points to reply to, brief inclusions for them. On second thought, cut out the first inclusion. There seems to be a growing disregard for nettiquette. Someone mistakenly referred to James Tiptree as being male in SF-lovers. So far I think there's been about 15 articles correcting this, with more sure to follow. About ten people identified the girl in the train in Superman. Newsgroup boundaries are being routinely ignored. Everyone has their theories about why this is, (and mine probably won't go over too well with most people on the net) but the facts are that the current structure of the net, and its philosophy of operation, encourage this sort of behavior, simply because there is no way to control anything, and because any attempt by anyone to control anything is met with a tremendous hue and cry. Personally, I sympathize with Gene. The backbone sites are simply going to have to act autocratically on these matters, and if the leaves don't like it, fine. They can go form their own net. Charley Wingate "I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada someday." - M. Fox
bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (10/25/85)
I don't think rn is any more at fault than readnews in accounting for the
included text, and probably significantly less at fault. At least rn
gives you the option of including text or not when following up on an
article. Readnews blindly includes the text. If you happen to be using
a line editor, rather than a full screen editor, you are often unaware
that a possibly large file has been included in your followup. (Yes O great
designers of the netnews software, there are still people who use line
editors out there.) I have put a local hack in that queries you as to
whether you really want to include the parent article to avoid exactly this
accident.
--
Byron Howes
System Manager -- NCECS
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchallbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/28/85)
[WARNING: ALL OF <3220@ut-sally.UUCP> is in here -- see the end for the reason] > It's been suggested that if RN didn't have an "F" command, people would > just use editors. This is not the case. There was a massive increase > in the amount of included text on the net with the introduction of RN. > > When I saw the "F" feature in an early release, I wrote an urgent message > to Larry Wall begging him to take this feature out. He didn't agree that > it would be as bad as I suggested. I suspect current trends prove me right. > > Remember the rule for USENET software design: Articles are posted once, but > read a thousand times. Anything that makes it 1% easier for a reader and > 500% harder for the poster is worth it. > > To my mind, this justifies moderators (as I have described them) and careful > checks in posting software, along with a plethora of keywords. > > Right now the net is (roughly) reader-pays, so it should be reader driven. If > you put in the option for poster-pays, this would change. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 I hate to tell you... but I sent this from 2.10.2 readnews (temporary, I am stuck at 300 baud right now...) -- and the only followup command available automatically includes the message. Ditto vnews. If anything, rn is BETTER since the `f' command is available. -- ``Youth, you are guilty of muddy thinking.'' Mentor ncoast!allbery@Case.CSNet (ncoast!allbery%Case.CSNet@CSNet-Relay.ARPA) ..decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa -- maybe ..genrad!mit-eddie!futura!ncoast!allbery 6615 Center St., Mentor, OH 44060 (I moved) --Phone: +01 216 974 9210 CIS 74106,1032 -- MCI MAIL BALLBERY (WARNING: I am only a part-time denizen...) ncoast is dead, long live ncoast!