Re: Google Groups and netiquette
- From: "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 23:21:34 GMT
Gunnar Hjalmarsson <noreply@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:3eq311F4drdmU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>>> It seems like groups-beta.google.com has undergone a change which
>>> leads people to not quote anything when replying to a message.
>>> Maybe those who dislike when people reply without providing context
>>> should better call Google's attention to the problem rather than
>>> blaming GG posters...
>>
>> I will complain to Google Groups regarding this,
>
> Good!
Thank you. I already wrote them a nice (I think) note suggesting they
could improve the interface. We'll see if anything happens.
>> wholesale killfiling of all Google Groups posts is beginning to
>> look like an attractive option.
>
> Well, M$ encourages top posting, Google encourages no context at
> all... It's not obvious to me that killfiling is the best way to deal
> with this kind of dilemma.
I don't know what *the* solution is, but this option is looking like a
convenient one for me.
> We won't likely convince those giants that they'd better stay out of
> Usenet. Accordingly, we'll probably have to endure postings from both
> Newsreaders and web based forums.
Possibly. However, if the posters from Google Groups got in on the act,
and complained that this misfeature of their interface is making it
harder for them to get good answers, and therefore would rather switch
to a real newsreader, that should have an impact.
> Maybe it's time to revise the posting guidelines. You *can* deal with
> postings without context by simply viewing messages by thread, right?
That requires an exponential increase in the time it would take to
figure out what is being discussed, who is right, who suggested what etc
as the thread gets longer and longer. Why should you or I bear that
cost?
The only revision to the posting guidelines might be a note specific to
Google Groups users, but then it would require an extra burden on Tad to
keep up with whatever changes Google might make to their interface in
the future. The rule is simple, whatever software you are using, the
burden is on you to figure out how to compose an effective follow-up.
> After all, all these complaints about people's non-compliance with the
> format guidelines aren't very fruitful.
If people did not get away with non-compliance, then they would be
forced to learn the particular quirks of the software *they chose* to
post.
Just like teaching how to use the operating system they chose to use is
not our job, teaching them how to use their newsreader, or catering to
their ignorance cannot be our job either.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(reverse each component and remove .invalid for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://mail.augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Google Groups and netiquette
- From: Gunnar Hjalmarsson
- Re: Google Groups and netiquette
- References:
- Google Groups and netiquette
- From: Gunnar Hjalmarsson
- Re: Google Groups and netiquette
- From: A. Sinan Unur
- Re: Google Groups and netiquette
- From: Gunnar Hjalmarsson
- Google Groups and netiquette
- Prev by Date: Re: Google Groups and netiquette
- Next by Date: Re: Need help with perl script using threads.
- Previous by thread: Re: Google Groups and netiquette
- Next by thread: Re: Google Groups and netiquette
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|