rjs (02/05/83)
Although I'll agree that summaries are the most considerate thing to post to the net, I think we should not forbid collecting replies and making one posting. This is much better that reading a whole bunch of individual replies (especially if you don't want to read them; one 'n' is better than many). Encourage folks to summarize if they have time, but if they don't, they should still collect replies into one posting. Robert Snyder floyd!rjs
hdj (02/06/83)
A few words on posting collections of replies to the net: DON'T include the headers. Otherwise, it's quite the same as if the people responded directly to the net. You have text editors - *use them*. DON'T include replies that include no pertinent information, like those that say, "Yes, I'm interested in your survey on left-handed monkey wrenches; please forward a copy of your results to me." Thank you. Herb Jellinek, SDC/aBC R&D burdvax!hdj (uucp), jellinek@wharton-10 (ARPA), 215-648-7456 (Ma)
geo (02/06/83)
Ed Pawlak, who posted the original article to which this is a followup, observes that many people who ask a question don't summarize, but merely post a concatenation of the responses they receive. He asked people not to do this, but rather to condense for the rest of us, otherwise it defeats the purpose of not just posting followups. I would like to add, I think that it is a little rude to post mail you have received privately to the net public. Personally, I think that you should ask people's permission before you post anything they have written you to the net. People might say things by mail, that they would not like to have generally posted. Or they might have wished to have taken greater care to be coherent, if they knew they were writing for an audience of 8,000 rather than 1.
hal (02/07/83)
As one who has "posted a summary to the net", I think this discussion misses
the point. First, I don't see anything wrong with including responses to
a question in the summary as long as an effort is made to weed out duplicates
and eliminate "please send me a copy of the summary" notes. If a response
to a query is coherent and reasonably well written, I'd rather see the
original note than see the editor's paraphrase of the note. But certainly
it's a good idea to edit and paraphrase a response that contains useful
information but is poorly written or contains much irrelevent material.
(I fixed up some typos and spelling errors in the notes I used in a summary.)
Second, if someone sends me a note in response to a request that advertises
that a summary will be posted or made available, I think that it's perfectly
reasonable to include that note or an edited version of it in the summary.
People responding to such requests are obviously aware that their note might
be sent to others, and are perfectly free to request that it not be forwarded
if there is some reason for such a request. I certainly didn't get any
complaints from anyone after posting a summary. I don't see any reason to
go through an exchange of notes with everyone who responds just to see if
it's OK to use their response.
Hal Perkins
uucp: {decvax|vax135|...}!cornell!hal
arpa: hal@cornell
bitnet: hal@crnlcsclives (02/08/83)
Please do continue to send collections of responses rather than summaries. There is much more useful information in several persons' choice of words (perhaps edited) than in the most well-intentioned attempt to reduce them. Usenet is an excellent reference; let's keep it that way.
geo (02/10/83)
In response to the original article entitled "Summaries to the net" I posted a followup asking people to exercise consideration about posting private correspondence. Hal Perkins at Cornell posted a followup which said, in part: Second, if someone sends me a note in response to a request that advertises that a summary will be posted or made available, I think that it's perfectly reasonable to include that note or an edited version of it in the summary. People responding to such requests are obviously aware that their note might be sent to others, and are perfectly free to request that it not be forwarded if there is some reason for such a request. I certainly didn't get any complaints from anyone after posting a summary. I don't see any reason to go through an exchange of notes with everyone who responds just to see if it's OK to use their response. Well Hal, maybe I wasn't clear. If someone clearly states in their article that they mean to post a summary to the net, then one should be prepared to be quoted. Many people however post questions, receive some answers, and requests from other people to be informed of what they learn, and \then/ they decide to post a summary of their responses, or even worse, the verbatim responses themselves. I received about a half dozen replies to my article from people who had been burned the way I had. That is, from people who had dashed off some unguarded thoughts to someone who had posted a question of some kind, only to find their response broadcast to the net. Personally, I feel that common courtesy implies that you should send an acknowledgement of some kind to everyone who replies to an article of yours, regardless of whether you plan to ask them if you can post their reply or not. Geo Swan, Integrated Studies, University of Waterloo