brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/06/85)
It's a hard fact to take, but the time has come to be autocratic and start enforcing netiquette in software. Past authors of the news softare have made the (understandable) mistake of trying to make the posting software easy to use. This should be stopped. Articles are posted once, yet read thousands of times. Anything that makes it one factor easier for the readers and 500 factors more difficult for the poster is justified. Thus the following rules are proposed: 1) No "Re:" lines on followups. News should not provide an automatic subject, and instead should require a new AND DIFFERENT subject to be entered. If an article is new, it talks about something new, and the subject should say what this is. While we're at it, no subject should be less than about 50 characters. Detecting grouped articles is not a function of the subject but rather of the References lines 2) No included text of the source article. In fact, the software should detect articles with included text and reject them. 3) No immediate followups. Instead, all followup requests should be collected and batched to the end of the news session, where the reader will be presented the referenced articles again, and asked if he really wants to follow up. 4) Default distribution region-wide (or smaller), with netwide distribution requiring an explicit request, with confirmation. 5) Default followup done as mail to the sender, and only a later question after the article is prepared allowing the article to go to the net. Questions like, "is your article directed at one person, or answering a question." Reminders that questions should be answered by mail, leaving it up to the recipient to inform the world if need be. 6) Detection of beginning users, and beefing up the verbosity and restriction for them. Moderating them if need be. (this won't be censorship. The way to get unmoderated would be to learn enough to know how to ask!) 6) K news (of course) A thousand keywords, and a good 5 minutes of research required by beginners to find out the right keyword to post to. About time they gave the matter some thought. So this all sounds nasty and restrictive? Will it make posting a pain? GOOD. For all your complaints about how people in favour of this sort of thing are trying to ruin your net, ***you're trying to ruin MINE.*** Of course, these changes, along with many other things like K news will never get done, since nobody has the time and nobody wants to pay for Usenet, Inc. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/09/85)
In article <245@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >It's a hard fact to take, but the time has come to be autocratic and >start enforcing netiquette in software. Past authors of the news softare >have made the (understandable) mistake of trying to make the posting software >easy to use. This should be stopped. Brad and I have been disagreeing on this point in private-- now it seems to be time to disagree in public. Attempting to solve the news problems by making it harder to use works just as well as making cars less likely to kill someone by flattening the tires. It works, but it doesn't increase the usefulness of the tools and it only works until someone patches it. To continue with the automobile analogy (and hopefully not stretch it too far) if you want to reduce the number of automobile deaths you have to do one of two things-- make them less likely to crash or make them more likely to have their occupants survive. Also like automobiles there will be large numbers of automobiles that already exist that won't be upgraded to these new standards of safety, and there will be a significant percentage of those that subvert the laws (18% of cars supposed to use unleaded are illegally fueled with leaded fuel) and a good percentage that would simply hack out the changes they don't like (catalytic converters, for example). So much for stretching a point, but the analogy holds-- any software changes we install take a LONG time to propogate, if they propogate at all. People who don't like those changes simply won't install them or will remove them. If a car needs a tuneup, it won't perform as optimally as it should. But if you flatten the tires to solve engine knocking at high speeds, you don't solve the problem. Usenet needs a tuneup. (I know, I said I'd drop the analogy...) This doesn't mean that what Brad says is useless, but I think we need to be looking for ways for reducing the number of 'crashes' and also make it easier to survive these 'crashes'. (the analogy is now officially DOA) >1) No "Re:" lines on followups. News should not provide an automatic subject, > and instead should require a new AND DIFFERENT subject to be entered. > If an article is new, it talks about something new, and the subject should > say what this is. While we're at it, no subject should be less than about > 50 characters. Detecting grouped articles is not a function of the subject > but rather of the References lines All this does is increase hassle factors for the poster, not increase the available information. Not all systems support the References line (for instance, Dec's Enet, most notes systems, and everything coming off of arpa. This means that Reference lines show up on probably no more than 50% of the volume of the net, and none of the areas that don't support it can be fixed by updating the news software (or really have a reason to upgrade for this feature within their sphere of reference). >2) No included text of the source article. In fact, the software should > detect articles with included text and reject them. Included text has a purpose, but it needs to be edited to the neccessary abstracts. I now wish it hadn't been made so easy to include text, because it is terribly misused, but I dont see an easy way to remove the feature from future releases. Chip Rosenthal is working on postnews, and 2.10.3 will probably be making checks of followups and restrict total percentage of a followup to some percentage of the size of the article. >3) No immediate followups. Instead, all followup requests should be collected > and batched to the end of the news session rn already allows this, and I use it continuously (put articles away with the 'M' command, then re-enter the newsgroup after you finish it. A lot of the time you find you don't NEED to post a followup, because someone else has and it is waiting to be read-- subject searches in rn also make this easier to see). >4) Default distribution region-wide (or smaller) I don't know about this-- It sounds good, but there are implications that need to be thought through. Should Unix-wizards be regionalized? >5) Default followup done as mail to the sender, and only a later question > after the article is prepared allowing the article to go to the net. Postnews and followups probably ought to remind users a little more stridently to use mail-- people OUGHT to be more careful about using mail. (A good example-- after my first posting on this whole subject, I've gotten well over 100K of private mail on the thing-- I'm VERY glad I asked people to send it as mail, since most of it doesn't need to be seen by everyone, but the important parts end up influencing future comments on my part. >6) Detection of beginning users, and beefing up the verbosity and restriction > for them. Moderating them if need be. How do we detect them? Who moderates them? The site administrator? the same site administrator who we can't get to upgrade to 2.10.2 due to lack of time? right. >6) K news (of course) A thousand keywords, and a good 5 minutes of research There are two number sixes... (six of one, half a dozen of another?) I've looked at keywords, and I'm not convinced that they are nearly as wonderful a solution as others. I've put up some quick&dirty prototypes, and there are technical issues I can't see easy answers for, as well as finding it at least as difficult (or maybe more difficult) to find things with keywords. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, just not a simple solution-- it solves some things, but creates a whole net set of problems that need to be dealt with. Keywords may well be a solution, if we can find a way to integrate them into the existing net, but people should be aware that they aren't a panacea. How many users would REALLY be willing to spend five minutes trudging through lists of keywords, anyway? wouldn't it be better to allow users to simply generate their own keywords? Wouldn't it be better to get that user to spend 5 minutes reading emily post and whatever other documents help them understand the net better? (serious questions-- not flippant ones-- please mail me your opinions...) >So this all sounds nasty and restrictive? Will it make posting a pain? >GOOD. Bad! In an environment that has no way of enforcing changes, the places where the changes are needed most become least likely to install them. >Of course, these changes, along with many other things like K news will >never get done, since nobody has the time and nobody wants to pay for >Usenet, Inc. Which is why I'm looking for administrative fixes-- things that can be done without software development costs and time, without changes to existing sites, and can be done within the current nature of the net. The two that look most promising are significant rewrites of parts of the documentation set similar to my emily post rewrite of last year (and making that documentation more visible on the net, somehow) and cleaning up the naming space. Both can be done from what little 'central' authority there is, doesn't require software changes, and can make a difference, quickly and cheaply. My mail shows that people seem to be ready for some of these changes, and I'm willing to work on doing them as long as the net does seem to support them, but I want them to be what the network wants, and I want them to make things better. To do that, I need feedback from the net on what directions you think the net should be moving. I'll have more details on this later, but please drop me a line and give me an idea of what to look for. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach, National Semiconductor {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Be seeing you!
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (03/11/85)
My chief complaint about some of Brad Templeton's suggestions -- elimination
of "Re:" subjects on followups, replacement of newsgroups with an
intentionally hard-to-use system of keywords, etc. -- is that they don't
really make Usenet harder to use, they just make Usenet harder to use WELL.
In my opinion steps like these would result in more articles, not fewer,
being posted with inappropriate titles or in inappropriate places -- the
inconsiderate slobs will continue to do as they damned well please, and
well-meaning but naive users will be even more baffled by Usenet than they
are now. This is no solution to anything.
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
--- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sallydave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (03/11/85)
There's one very simple fix to postnews which would make a
large difference. That is to require confirmation from the
user before posting the article. rn's Pnews already does this.
With postnews, even an experienced netnews participant can
accidentally hit the 'q' key and find his article posted. At
the time confirmation is requested, the article should probably
be redisplayed to the user, too. If he finds it a pain rereading
the whole thing, maybe he'll get the point.
SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS: if you have rn running, why not disable
postnews? Or better yet, put it somewhere hidden (/usr/lib/news/postnews),
so experienced users can find it but new users will go through Pnews.
Dave Sherman
--
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!davejay@unm-la.UUCP (03/12/85)
> ................................., ***you're trying to ruin MINE.*** > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 (-: If it won't smother under its own weight, let's bury it under improvements. Better yet, let's elect the elite and kick everyone else off (democratic aristocracy, what?). That'll fix it. :-) -- Jay Plett {{ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax, lanl}!unm-la!jay
avolio@grendel.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (03/13/85)
> From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) > ... massively abused. There is a .signature feature. It's > used to post quotes, little pictures and people's postal addresses. Easily > tens of thousands of dollars of phone bills have now been spent ... A welcome addition to the next version of net news software (which would probably be hacked back out!) would be to include only one line from the .signature file. All of us have seen many, many postings with more "signature" than "body." What a waste... -- Fred Avolio {decvax,seismo}!grendel!avolio 301/731-4100 x4227
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/14/85)
Hey, great solution. Even better: let USENET only be accessed by special-purpose terminals which cost $10K apiece. A randomizer built into the unit could deliver a strong electric shock through the keyboard at unpredictable intervals. That'll keep the net load down! (Better yet, anyone posting to the net should immediately become liable for a tax audit.) More seriously, long signatures have nothing to do with the .signature feature. I append my signature within the csh script I have my EDITOR variable set to. Much more flexible, and it doesn't cause the misbehavior I have gotten from one mailer from the .signature file's presence. As for the weird names and organizations perpetrated by Chuq, Rich, et al., so what? I can't imagine anyone being bothered by them unless the person suffers neurotic cravings for order. They are no longer than the real names and organizations most of us use. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/17/85)
In article <309@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >More seriously, long signatures have nothing to do with the .signature >feature. I append my signature within the csh script I have my EDITOR >variable set to. Much more flexible, and it doesn't cause the misbehavior I >have gotten from one mailer from the .signature file's presence. As for the >weird names and organizations perpetrated by Chuq, Rich, et al., so what? I >can't imagine anyone being bothered by them unless the person suffers >neurotic cravings for order. They are no longer than the real names and >organizations most of us use. I should point out that my signature is very rarely longer than 5 lines, on a very concious effort on my part. If signatures bother you, I'd suggest that you hack rn, or vnews, or readnews, or whatever you read news with to excise them. Standard news puts a '--' on the line before the signature for just this very purpose, and I heartily suggest that people who add signatures manually do the same. If you DO do this, please post it-- I'm sure there are others who would appreciate doing without signatures as well. Just for random information, thought, the anti-signature types seem to be outnumbered. For every piece of hate mail I get on my signatures, I seem to get an average of two or three requests for references on the quotes or other positive comments... People who use signatures should also remember to keep them short-- there is little reason for a signature over 4-6 lines, and things like pictures (especially large pictures) and other space wasting cutsies get very tired when they are never changed... chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach, National Semiconductor {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Be seeing you!
geoff@utcs.UUCP (Geoff Collyer) (03/19/85)
In article <2478@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >If signatures bother you, I'd suggest >that you hack rn, or vnews, or readnews, or whatever you read news with to >excise them. Standard news puts a '--' on the line before the signature for >just this very purpose, and I heartily suggest that people who add >signatures manually do the same. If you DO do this, please post it-- I'm >sure there are others who would appreciate doing without signatures as >well. I haven't modified rn yet, but here's the two-line mod to readnews (2.10.1, sorry) to excise signatures. In rfuncs2.c, you modify the function tprint and add the two lines with comments on them. As coded, signatures are only suppressed under -h; you may want to change this policy. [Incidentally, signatures are preceded by "-- \n" and not "--\n".] [A small flame, now that news supplies one's name and return address and pathalias can provide a decent return path, what justificiation is there for signatures aside from humour?] tprint(ifp, ofp, checkfrom) register FILE *ifp, *ofp; int checkfrom; { register int c; while ((fgets(bfr, sizeof bfr, ifp)) != NULL && !sigtrap) { if (hflag && strcmp(bfr, "-- \n") == 0) /* signature start */ break; /* ignore rest */ if (checkfrom && strncmp(bfr, "From ", 5) == 0) putc('>', ofp); fputs(bfr, ofp); } if (sigtrap) qfflush(ofp); fflush(ofp); fprintf(ofp, (sigtrap ? "\n\n" : "\n")); sigtrap = FALSE; }