Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > early ecom crit

Reply
Thread Tools

early ecom crit

 
 
Cris Zalika
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2004
in article http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed), Toby Inkster at
(E-Mail Removed) wrote on 10/02/2004 4:06 PM:

> who have to read



Little news for you... you don't have to read the messages if you don't want
to.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2004
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:10:12 -0700, Cris Zalika <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> in article (E-Mail Removed), Toby
> Inkster at
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote on 10/02/2004 4:06 PM:
>> who have to read

> Little news for you... you don't have to read the messages if you don't
> want
> to.


Cris, thank you. That's precisely the point.

The folks who ask on alt.html how to do a footer that appears at the
bottom of the viewport or lower or how to make their images leap up and
down to a disco beat, they want an answer, don't they?

If they post in a manner that is difficult to read, we have the option of
not reading them. That means a lot of answers won't get put out.

Especially in a subject like HTML, it's critical to be able to easily
follow the thread. That's why selective quoting and conversational-order
posting is so important here. Whe the posts are a jumbled mess, it's much
harder to give a good response.

I'm not saying you have to like it. But if someone's looking for an
alt.html reg to answer a question, they should follow convention. If they
don't, we request that they do. If they fail to, we don't read the posts
anymore.

If we do not advise them to use better practice in posting, we must then
either waste a lot of our free time straightening out someone else's mess,
or ignore the poster. Neither is a helpful circumstance.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Cris Zalika
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2004
in article (E-Mail Removed), Neal at (E-Mail Removed)
wrote on 10/02/2004 10:20 PM:

> they want an answer


What people want is not always what they get. Or they get nothing. It is
not guaranteed that anyone will get anything in a newsgroup.

You may want bottom posting, someone else may want an answer to a question,
both of those desires may not get met in a newsgroup.

The desires of people are irrelevant to what actually happens in a
newsgroup.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Neal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2004
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:06:51 -0700, Cris Zalika <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> in article (E-Mail Removed), Neal at
> (E-Mail Removed)
> wrote on 10/02/2004 10:20 PM:
>
>> they want an answer


You've extrapolated quite creatively from the four words you've quoted,
however I'm afraid not terribly logically. My statement was essentially
that if you desire an answer, you'll increase your chances of a good one
by employing posting techniques which facilitate comprehensive reading. I
never intended to express that one can expect an answer if they ask a
question - my apologies if that's the message that was inadvertently sent.

> What people want is not always what they get. Or they get nothing. It
> is
> not guaranteed that anyone will get anything in a newsgroup.


Indeed. But if they want to get the best odds, they need their message
easily understood by the reader.

> You may want bottom posting, someone else may want an answer to a
> question,
> both of those desires may not get met in a newsgroup.


In short, your analogy equating bottom-posting to wanting an answer to a
question is flawed.

Desiring an answer is largely a selfish endeavor, and I don't mean that
disparagingly. While others who search the archives might benefit from the
discussion, accurate responses are largely going to benefit the asker.

However, if the poor sap searching the archives finds it difficult to sort
the order of speakers due to confused posting, no one else is really
helped. And certainly the posters in the thread will have greater
difficulty following the flow of ideas.

Conversational-order posting is, by contrast to wanting a correct answer,
not selfish. It is desired to enable readers to more easily digest the
content. It's (potentially) a little more work by one person to save a lot
of work by others who may be able to teach you something valuable.

> The desires of people are irrelevant to what actually happens in a
> newsgroup.


From a realist's standpoint, there's no guarantee you'll ever be treated
fairly. We still aspire to a culture where respect regularly happens,
however. One form of respect is showing awareness that the folks who could
provide a helpful response do so in their free time at no cost to you. A
good way to demonstrate that awareness is to organize the post carefully
to maximize readability.

Consider, also, that the main topic of alt.html is website authoring,
which is essentially publishing content for download to a myriad of user
agents. Being good at organizing content in a post is certainly relevant
to the goals of web authoring, isn't it?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Cris Zalika
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2004
in article (E-Mail Removed), Neal at (E-Mail Removed)
wrote on 10/02/2004 11:27 PM:


>>> they want an answer

>
> You've extrapolated quite creatively from the four words you've quoted,
> however I'm afraid not terribly logically.


Logic is not what always happens in a newsgroup. You should know that.

People want certain responses, they expect certain responses, when they
don't get what they want or expect they often react in emotional ways.

Not logical ways.







> Indeed. But if they want to get the best odds, they need their message
> easily understood by the reader.


Even if all the "rules" are followed there is still no guarantee that
anything that they want or expect will result.

You are making the assumption that most of the readers of newsgroup messages
will respond in a logical way.

That is what YOU desire, that is what YOU expect. Another case of someone
expecting something from a newsgroup that has no logical basis.







>
> However, if the poor sap searching the archives finds it difficult to sort
> the order of speakers due to confused posting, no one else is really
> helped.


Who wrote what is not nearly as important as what is written in that case.
The person looking for his "answer" does not care who wrote it, he is just
looking for the words... who wrote it is irrelevant.



> certainly the posters in the thread will have greater
> difficulty following the flow of ideas.


There may be no desire on the part of the authors to make it easy on anyone.
You are making the assumption that authors care about the "reader's" grasp
of the ideas.

You seem to have difficulty grasping this idea. And I am bottom posting
below your quoted text...







> It is desired to enable readers to more easily digest the
> content.


Some people don't care if you or anyone digests anything.





> others who may be able to teach you something valuable.


What authors of messages desire is almost irrelevant to what the reader
chooses to "learn" from a message.

The reader has all the power to choose how valuable the message is to the
reader. The author has no control over what the reader sees as valuable in
the message.








> From a realist's standpoint, there's no guarantee you'll ever be treated
> fairly. We still aspire to a culture where respect regularly happens,
> however. One form of respect is showing awareness that the folks who could
> provide a helpful response do so in their free time at no cost to you. A
> good way to demonstrate that awareness is to organize the post carefully
> to maximize readability.


Shrug. Some people don't see that as relevant to their needs. They just
want what they want and don't care about such stuff.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Bostock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2004
Tomas Holm wrote:
> Where did you find those stats?


I forget... they're part of a Microsoft project to sociologically track
the use of NGs if I remember correctly.

Matt
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matt Bostock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2004
Mark Parnell wrote:
> And yes, top-posting is definitely frowned upon in alt.html. The OP has
> been posting to alt.html for a while, which is why Karl made the above
> comment.


Fair enough - my sincere apologies!

Matt
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Popular ecom store ahmik.flock@gmail.com Computer Information 0 04-22-2008 11:53 AM
Popular ecom store Rashida HTML 0 02-16-2008 07:47 AM
scp crit 2 mark | r HTML 7 12-15-2005 04:55 PM
copy of CRIT from ADG mark | r HTML 3 05-25-2005 07:31 AM
GUI Crit mark | r HTML 1 09-18-2003 08:44 AM



Advertisments