Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?

Reply
Thread Tools

CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?

 
 
Colin D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
groups, for a reason.

I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
message flow.

I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
should be banned.

What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {

Colin D.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Zentena
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
> reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {
>



If it makes sense to cross post then cross post. OTOH think hard if it
really makes sense. Most things don't.

Nick

--
---------------------------------------
"Digital the new ice fishing"
---------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1...
> As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
> groups, for a reason.
>
> I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
> more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
> at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
> messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
> post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
> participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
> annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
> message flow.
>
> I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
> should be banned.
>
> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
> reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {
>
> Colin D.


I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the
header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply,
then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get to
the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't know
if it will.
This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate
email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for
some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow
shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are agents
of the CIA, or some such thing.
In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message
directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his
list, so that is what I do.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Colin D wrote:

> As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
> groups, for a reason.
>
> I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
> more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
> at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
> messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
> post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
> participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
> annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
> message flow.
>
> I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
> should be banned.
>
> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
> reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {
>


Charter don't matter; those who wanna multi or x-post will do so and if
you ask 'em to stop, some will become righteous and do it all the more.
Others will X-post just to be irksome to those who haven't learned to
filter or kill threads. Setting followups is logical, but also can set
some folks off. Cross posting is infinitely better than multi posting in
my book, but both are abused.

The thing that may most delimit garbage is totally ignoring X-posted
garbage, or at least trimming out groups that have zero relationship to
photos.

Now, as to putting Subject Lines in all caps......

<s.>

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
William Graham wrote:
>>
>>What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
>>reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {

>
> I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the
> header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply,
> then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get to
> the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't know
> if it will.
> This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate
> email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for
> some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow
> shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are agents
> of the CIA, or some such thing.
> In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message
> directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his
> list, so that is what I do.


William:

If you thought of the post in terms of not so much as going to the
original sender, but to lots of people who read each of the groups,
perhaps that'd motivate you to examine where it's going. It'd help a lot
of people if you did. The OP should be following each of the groups to
which he posts; therefor trimming out extraneous groups is highly valued
by ..... the rest of the group who now don't have to read about politics
in the photo groups, for example.

cordially,

john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Another Made Up Name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006

"William Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>> As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
>> groups, for a reason.
>>
>> I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
>> more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
>> at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
>> messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
>> post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
>> participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
>> annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
>> message flow.
>>
>> I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
>> should be banned.
>>
>> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
>> reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {
>>
>> Colin D.

>
> I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the
> header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply,
> then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get
> to the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't
> know if it will.
> This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate
> email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for
> some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow
> shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are
> agents of the CIA, or some such thing.
> In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message
> directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his
> list, so that is what I do.


There is very good reason to not post your email address to Usenet.
Especially if you use a permanent long term email address. I generally keep
my email addresses for many years. The junk unsolicited emails and Spam
that are generated by just one Usenet posting are not worth it when one
simply want to make a comment, and/or participate in a Usenet discussion,
with absolutely zero requirement of personal email exchanges...



 
Reply With Quote
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Nick wrote on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:18:01 -0500:

NZ> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Colin D
NZ> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
??>>
??>> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this?
??>> Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except
??>> this one, of course {
??>>
NZ> If it makes sense to cross post then cross post. OTOH
NZ> think hard if it really makes sense. Most things don't.

For myself, if I notice something is cross-posted, I ignore it.
I wish it were possible to define a rule in OE that would do
that automatically but such is not the case. More's the pity, I
don't think I'd miss much!

James Silverton.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Helen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1...
> As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
> groups, for a reason.
>


And since you have such strong views, what do you think about SHOUTING?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy Nixon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
> reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {


Crosspost if necessary; it usually isn't, but sometimes it makes sense.
Choose the smallest possible number of groups. Crossposting to try to
reach more people doesn't make sense; people *do* read more than one group.

Multi-posting is stupid, bad, and should never be done. It's spam.

--
Jeremy | http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
>groups, for a reason.


You have just demonstrated that cross-posting is *not*
intrinsically wrong. It can, however, be abused: cross-posting
to newsgroups where the message is inappropriate is an abuse and
is worse than simply posting an off topic message to a single
newsgroup.

Multi-posting is inherently an abuse itself, whether the message
is on topic or not. Multi-posting should be avoided.

(And, note that topicality and netiquette are on topic in any
newsgroup. Cross-posting to a small selection of related
newsgroups is acceptable for such topics. Hence this thread is
quite appropriate.)

>I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
>more of the above groups.


True, and it is an annoying abuse.

>Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
>at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
>messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
>post in one group does not appear in the others.


Broadening the base of discussion is *precisely* the purpose of
cross-posting. It is not annoying *in* *itself*, and is a very
reasonable thing to do _when_ _appropriate_.

>If one is
>participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
>annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
>message flow.
>
>I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
>should be banned.


Wrong, and absolutely illogical! Multi-posting *is* banned!
People do it anyway (rarely out of any intent to be annoying,
but instead simply because they don't know the difference).

Cross-posting is beneficial when used appropriately; like
everything else in the world it can be abused, and that abuse
*is* banned... but people do it anyway. Granted that a great
deal of cross-posting abuse is in fact done with the very
purpose of annoying others, but still even with cross-posting
abuse it is mostly done in ignorance.

>What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
>reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {


The group charter is irrelevant.

Netiquette is do not ever multi-post and do not ever post (or
worse, cross-post) original articles to newsgroups where the
message (topic) is not appropriate.

Replying to multi-posted articles is hardly a problem, though I
suppose one reasonable response would be to cross-post the
response as appropriate.

Replying to cross-posted articles confuses many people; in
particular there is a problem with setting Followup-To headers.
While it is *clearly* an abuse to start an inappropriately
cross-posted thread, once it has been started if the thread is
actually of any value at all there is no way to narrow the
distribution without potentially cutting off some readers who
are following the thread. In particular it is offensive to
silently add a Followup-To header without announcing it in the
text of the message, but even when announced it is poor form to
assume that others should subscribe to the particular newsgroup
selected by the sender.

Trying to "ban" abuse is a waste of time and effort. The only
recourse is effective use of filters/scoring/killfiles by
individual users. Note that on some newsgroups it *would* make
sense to just filter out everything that is cross-posted, though
it might on occasion delete a useful article. But generally
that is overkill because it will delete some useful articles.

Use of a "score" system, where a number of characteristics are
heuristically evaluated to form a decision that passes or fails
any given message is much preferred, and particularly so when it
is easy to manually manipulate it to add particular authors and
threads. Another nice feature is killing any thread that is
cross-posted to certain specific newsgroups (for example, to any
political discussion newsgroup).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
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




Advertisments