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?

 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> 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).
>


Cross-posting is so often abused, and so easy to abuse, that I would
really like a newsreader with the ability to eliminate cross-posts, and
set replies ONLY to the group from which I am posting. Somehow this
seems reasonable request. Sure would save a lot of effort on threads
such as this one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
Hunt wrote:
> In article <4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1>, ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1
> says...
>> 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.

>
> Colin, I disagree, when it comes to X-Posting. If an article/question is
> APPROPRIATE [emphasis mine] for multiple NGs, then I urge posters to X-Post to
> those that apply. First, not all servers carry all NGs. Second, subscribers
> might not read all groups. If an article is X-Posted, all of the replies will
> follow the article, regardless of which NG they come from. It should also save
> the OP time, by checking his/her article in one, and seeing all of the answers
> to it.
>
> With the two main Photoshop NGs, I encourage posters to X-Post to both, rather
> than multi-post for the above reasons.
>
> Hunt
>
> PS, I trimmed the X-Post Newsgroups, as this particular server doesn't have
> one in your list.
>

That pretty much defines the territory. One might reply to a message
that is cross-posted to a group he doesn't really want to be seen as
having posted to, such as a kiddy-porn group, or one with a political or
religious affiliation not consistent with one's belief system. I try to
be aware of the groups to which a cross-post is going to prevent this
problem. If a post is appropriate to more than one group, then I will
repeat it in the other appropriate group. I would really like to see
cross-posting eliminated as an option in all newsgroup readers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:22:45 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Cross-posting is so often abused, and so easy to abuse, that I would
> really like a newsreader with the ability to eliminate cross-posts, and
> set replies ONLY to the group from which I am posting. Somehow this
> seems reasonable request. Sure would save a lot of effort on threads
> such as this one.


My newsreader has had that ability for years, and that's the way
I've configured it. This is copied from the help file, and the
"selected newsgroup" is the one from which you're posting :

> Follow-up crosspost action
>
> Specify what you want Agent to do each time you post a reply to more
> than one newsgroup:
>
> Post the reply to all newsgroups.
> Post the reply to selected newsgroups only.
> Prompt you each time you post a reply, so that you can choose an
> action on a case-by-case basis.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
Floyd covered it pretty thorougly & accurately here. I'm top-posting to
preserve that & add a few comments.

What I do with cross-posted threads including my own in chose one group
to follow it & mark the other as ignored: this is necessary to preserve
sanity and when folks eliminate the cross posts, they should announce it
and know they may not reach the OP. That might make sense like not
wanting to bore the 35mm gang with digital comments but the caveats
still apply.

I don't mind multiposting actually, that way each group makes their own
unique replies & don't **** each other off but you can end up with
redundant replies and lose the cross-pollinating benefits. But at least
I don't have to read the same messages twice! That's just ridiculous.

If the cross-posted message was done appropriately, leave it intact to
maintain order. Multi-posting only makes sense where there is no
technical answer sought, just opinions. Tell people if you are
cross-posting or eliminating groups.

I'll be marking all this ignored now <grin>.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> 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).

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:22:45 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Cross-posting is so often abused, and so easy to abuse, that I would
>>really like a newsreader with the ability to eliminate cross-posts, and
>>set replies ONLY to the group from which I am posting. Somehow this
>>seems reasonable request. Sure would save a lot of effort on threads
>>such as this one.

>
>
> My newsreader has had that ability for years, and that's the way
> I've configured it. This is copied from the help file, and the
> "selected newsgroup" is the one from which you're posting :


That'd be Forte Agent for those not that familiar with Headers. But it's
easy enough to delete unwanted NG's in replies from any Newsreader.
Agent can, I think I heard, set a filter on X-posts.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 07:45:10 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

>> My newsreader has had that ability for years, and that's the way
>> I've configured it. This is copied from the help file, and the
>> "selected newsgroup" is the one from which you're posting :

>
> That'd be Forte Agent for those not that familiar with Headers. But it's
> easy enough to delete unwanted NG's in replies from any Newsreader.
> Agent can, I think I heard, set a filter on X-posts.


Sort of, but it wouldn't help in exactly the way people here would
want. Instead of eliminating *all* crossposted messages, it can be
used to eliminate all but one, the idea being that if you've seen
one, you don't need to waste time dealing with any of the dupes.
With a minor tweak, Agent also allows the crossposted newsgroups to
appear in a line just above the message, so delving into headers to
see them isn't necessary.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006

"Ron Hunter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> William Graham wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> "Battleax" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> "William Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> I have been using my real email address for over 10 years now,
>>>>> and I have
>>>>> no problem eliminating the two dozen or so spam messages I get
>>>>> every
>>>>> day.....It takes me all of 5 minutes or less......I guess
>>>>> everyone
>>> I find the idea that it takes anyone 5 minutes to dump 20-30
>>> emails astounding. If it took me longer than 10-15 seconds...
>>> something would need fixing!

>>
>> Well, I have an "after market" program called "Qurb" that separates
>> out all the spam, and sure, I can dump all these in 10 seconds or
>> so....The problem is, sometimes Qurb screws up, and it separates
>> out something that I need to read.....Usually a message about
>> something I have ordered on line, that Qurb can't tell is important
>> to me. So, I peruse all the Qurb messages a bit more than one
>> normally would......Most are obvious deletes, but a few are worthy
>> of closer inspection.
>> The same thing is true of my snail mail. The spammers are very
>> cleaver at making the envelopes look like government checks, or
>> personal mail, or something that is, "Important", so I pretty well
>> have to open all the envelopes, or at least 50% of them. A couple
>> of years ago, I got two checks from a drug company that totaled
>> about $500. I threw them away, because they looked just like spam
>> mail.....It was no end of trouble getting the company to remake
>> those checks.....

> I open even the obviously junk snail mail. It often has personal
> information inside, and that goes to the shredder before going in
> the trash... Identity theft is becoming an international problem of
> massive proportions.


If it has an "Addressee wil pay postage" reply envelope inside, I send
it along, sealed, empty. I understand that is one of the few USPS
services that pays for itself.

--
Frank ess

 
Reply With Quote
 
AustinMN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
William Graham wrote:
<snip a lot>
> I have been using my real email address for over 10 years now, and I have no
> problem eliminating the two dozen or so spam messages I get every day.....It
> takes me all of 5 minutes or less......I guess everyone considers such
> things to be of different importance, but to me, posting under my real name
> and address is much more important than to let a 5 minute job interfere with
> it.


5 minutes a day comes out to more than 30 hours a year...almost a
week's worth of work. My time is worth a lot more than that.

Austin

 
Reply With Quote
 
Hunt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
>(E-Mail Removed) (Hunt) wrote:
>>
>>Colin, I disagree, when it comes to X-Posting. If an article/question is
>>APPROPRIATE [emphasis mine] for multiple NGs, then I urge posters to X-Post

to
>...
>
>>PS, I trimmed the X-Post Newsgroups, as this particular server doesn't have
>>one in your list.

>
>Which more or less chucked your entire discussion!
>
>Why not 1) remove that one group, and/or 2) shift to a server
>that will accept cross-posts to groups that it does not carry
>(and complain loudly about the ridiculous limitation to the
>admin people at the server which rejects such articles).
>
>As it is, you've cut yourself off from the majority of people
>following this thread...
>
>--
>Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
>Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)


Oh, I've got about six other news servers, just not the right one(s) on my
laptop by the pool. Yes, I could have gone to the office to respond, but have
better things to do.

I stated my opinion to the statement. If others missed it, it is their tough
luck.

Hunt

 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2006

"AustinMN" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> William Graham wrote:
> <snip a lot>
>> I have been using my real email address for over 10 years now, and I have
>> no
>> problem eliminating the two dozen or so spam messages I get every
>> day.....It
>> takes me all of 5 minutes or less......I guess everyone considers such
>> things to be of different importance, but to me, posting under my real
>> name
>> and address is much more important than to let a 5 minute job interfere
>> with
>> it.

>
> 5 minutes a day comes out to more than 30 hours a year...almost a
> week's worth of work. My time is worth a lot more than that.
>
> Austin
>

No matter how you do it, you are going to have to balance your available
time against messages lost. IOW, there is no way you can get important
messages, and eliminate spam messages without it costing you time. If you
don't post your real email address, then there are people who need to get in
touch with you that won't be able to, and you will suffer from this as well.
(I call this the living in the castle on the hill syndrome) Sure, you will
save your 30 hours a year, but what, exactly will you do with those 30 hours
that is more important than other people being able to get in touch with
you, and send you attachments, and other things that are of interest? What
it comes down to is the choice between interacting freely with the rest of
mankind, or living in a shell of your own making. Have you never wanted to
send someone something of interest, but were unable to, because he/she was
unapproachable for some reason or other? - Well, if you are unapproachable,
then you are putting this same burden on everyone else. You might as well
become a TV commentator, and never read your email or answer your phone.
Then you can talk to the rest of the world 24/7 and never have to hear any
of their responses, so if anyone disagrees with you, you will never know
it........


 
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