I see to day that someone was critisized for posting a message in multiple
conferences. This happenes at least every other day or so.
Now I agree that every now and then you will see a post in several/many
conferences, especially if the post is of an “advertisement” nature, this IS
VERY ANNOYING! But I find it almost as annoying every time someone rakes
someone over the coals for posting in two conferences.
Often I will have a question that kind of relates to this and kind of
relates to that. I think that the right thing to do is to post a message in
both places. First of all, you are twice as likely to get your question
answered. But also, it informs people monitoring both conferences that
there may be an issue that requires attention.
Now for the record, I have read every single message in every single
conference (including the betas) all throughout this newsgroup and through
the past three iterations of QUICS. (Going on 15 years). I understand that
it is a little extra work to see the same message more than once. But after
you read the first line of the message you don’t have to finish reading it.
It’s that simple.
I see to day that someone was critisized for posting a message in multiple
conferences. This happenes at least every other day or so.
I feel this is directed at me I try to be informative and not to
“critisized”.
Now I agree that every now and then you will see a post in several/many
conferences, especially if the post is of an “advertisement” nature, this
IS
VERY ANNOYING! But I find it almost as annoying every time someone rakes
someone over the coals for posting in two conferences.
Point taken.
Often I will have a question that kind of relates to this and kind of
relates to that. I think that the right thing to do is to post a message
in
both places. First of all, you are twice as likely to get your question
answered. But also, it informs people monitoring both conferences that
there may be an issue that requires attention.
Now for the record, I have read every single message in every single
conference (including the betas) all throughout this newsgroup and through
the past three iterations of QUICS. (Going on 15 years). I understand
that
it is a little extra work to see the same message more than once. But
after
you read the first line of the message you don’t have to finish reading
it.
It’s that simple.
“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:
: I see to day that someone was critisized for posting a message in multiple
: conferences. This happenes at least every other day or so.
: Now I agree that every now and then you will see a post in several/many
: conferences, especially if the post is of an “advertisement” nature, this IS
: VERY ANNOYING! But I find it almost as annoying every time someone rakes
: someone over the coals for posting in two conferences.
: Often I will have a question that kind of relates to this and kind of
: relates to that. I think that the right thing to do is to post a message in
: both places. First of all, you are twice as likely to get your question
: answered. But also, it informs people monitoring both conferences that
: there may be an issue that requires attention.
: Now for the record, I have read every single message in every single
: conference (including the betas) all throughout this newsgroup and through
: the past three iterations of QUICS. (Going on 15 years). I understand that
: it is a little extra work to see the same message more than once. But after
: you read the first line of the message you don’t have to finish reading it.
: It’s that simple.
: What do the rest of you think?
#include <disclaimer.h>
This is general, not QSSL specific:
Some folks, in Tech Sup for example, are subscribe to specific newsgroups.
Sending duplicate will sometimes make more people work on the same problem
when the workload could have been more usefully balance.
In general it is a good form not to crossposts. Of course as you pointed out,
there are sometimes good reasons to do it . It is just like everything
it can be abuse, and so annoying to see 6 times the same posts and
a waste of time.
For the benefit of others: Sometimes I will post to one conference and wait
a few hours. If there is no useful responce, I may then post to a different
conference.
I think thaht this is perfectly justifiable.
But the reason for my RFC is simply, if most people believe that it is a
real nuesense to post to two groups then I will conceed and just not do it,
unless absolutely necessary. I’m just curious what most people think.
“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote in message
news:9qetad$j3l$> 2@inn.qnx.com> …
I see to day that someone was critisized for posting a message in
multiple
conferences. This happenes at least every other day or so.
I feel this is directed at me > > I try to be informative and not to
“critisized”.
Now I agree that every now and then you will see a post in several/many
conferences, especially if the post is of an “advertisement” nature,
this
IS
VERY ANNOYING! But I find it almost as annoying every time someone
rakes
someone over the coals for posting in two conferences.
Point taken.
Often I will have a question that kind of relates to this and kind of
relates to that. I think that the right thing to do is to post a
message
in
both places. First of all, you are twice as likely to get your question
answered. But also, it informs people monitoring both conferences that
there may be an issue that requires attention.
Now for the record, I have read every single message in every single
conference (including the betas) all throughout this newsgroup and
through
the past three iterations of QUICS. (Going on 15 years). I understand
that
it is a little extra work to see the same message more than once. But
after
you read the first line of the message you don’t have to finish reading
it.
It’s that simple.
In general it is a good form not to crossposts. Of course as you pointed
out,
there are sometimes good reasons to do it > > . It is just like everything
it can be abuse, and so annoying to see 6 times the same posts and
a waste of time.
Some folks, in Tech Sup for example, are subscribe to specific newsgroups.
Sending duplicate will sometimes make more people work on the same problem
when the workload could have been more usefully balance.
In general it is a good form not to crossposts. Of course as you pointed out,
there are sometimes good reasons to do it > > . It is just like everything
it can be abuse, and so annoying to see 6 times the same posts and
a waste of time.
I think Bill has given reasons that cross-posting in moderation under some
circumstances might be a useful idea. To handle the problems of QSSL having more
than one person working the same problem, I suggest that whenever cross-posting is
done, a notice to that effect be put right up front, for example:
ATTENTION: cross-posted to qnxrtp.devtools and qnxrtp.os
For the benefit of others: Sometimes I will post to one conference and wait
a few hours. If there is no useful responce, I may then post to a different
conference.
I think thaht this is perfectly justifiable.
But the reason for my RFC is simply, if most people believe that it is a
real nuesense to post to two groups then I will conceed and just not do it,
unless absolutely necessary. I’m just curious what most people think.
If you are asking for a vote, I think that 2 newsgroups would be
acceptable use.
“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote in message
news:9qetad$j3l$> 2@inn.qnx.com> …
I see to day that someone was critisized for posting a message in
multiple
conferences. This happenes at least every other day or so.
I feel this is directed at me > > I try to be informative and not to
“critisized”.
Now I agree that every now and then you will see a post in several/many
conferences, especially if the post is of an “advertisement” nature,
this
IS
VERY ANNOYING! But I find it almost as annoying every time someone
rakes
someone over the coals for posting in two conferences.
Point taken.
Often I will have a question that kind of relates to this and kind of
relates to that. I think that the right thing to do is to post a
message
in
both places. First of all, you are twice as likely to get your question
answered. But also, it informs people monitoring both conferences that
there may be an issue that requires attention.
Now for the record, I have read every single message in every single
conference (including the betas) all throughout this newsgroup and
through
the past three iterations of QUICS. (Going on 15 years). I understand
that
it is a little extra work to see the same message more than once. But
after
you read the first line of the message you don’t have to finish reading
it.
It’s that simple.
What do the rest of you think?
\
–
Stephen Munnings
Software Developer
Corman Technologies Inc.
“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote:
: I see to day that someone was critisized for posting a message in multiple
: conferences. This happenes at least every other day or so.
: Now I agree that every now and then you will see a post in several/many
: conferences, especially if the post is of an “advertisement” nature, this IS
: VERY ANNOYING! But I find it almost as annoying every time someone rakes
: someone over the coals for posting in two conferences.
: Often I will have a question that kind of relates to this and kind of
: relates to that. I think that the right thing to do is to post a message in
: both places. First of all, you are twice as likely to get your question
: answered. But also, it informs people monitoring both conferences that
: there may be an issue that requires attention.
: Now for the record, I have read every single message in every single
: conference (including the betas) all throughout this newsgroup and through
: the past three iterations of QUICS. (Going on 15 years). I understand that
: it is a little extra work to see the same message more than once. But after
: you read the first line of the message you don’t have to finish reading it.
: It’s that simple.
: What do the rest of you think?
#include <disclaimer.h
This is general, not QSSL specific:
Some folks, in Tech Sup for example, are subscribe to specific newsgroups.
Sending duplicate will sometimes make more people work on the same problem
when the workload could have been more usefully balance.
In general it is a good form not to crossposts. Of course as you pointed out,
there are sometimes good reasons to do it > > . It is just like everything
it can be abuse, and so annoying to see 6 times the same posts and
a waste of time.
In general it is a good form not to crossposts. Of course as you pointed out,
there are sometimes good reasons to do it > > . It is just like everything
it can be abuse, and so annoying to see 6 times the same posts and
a waste of time.
A little addendum regard ‘good form’ from my point of view:
It makes a posting more readable, if the quoted passage is as short
as possible and reduced to the referred part only.
… it’s pretty annoying to scroll 10k of text, just to find a
‘me too’ at the very end – or worse: in between .
It makes a posting more readable, if the quoted passage is as short
as possible and reduced to the referred part only.
… it’s pretty annoying to scroll 10k of text, just to find a
‘me too’ at the very end – or worse: in between .
Absolutly! This was another point that I was going to make.
In fact, I think that this would be more helpful to those of us that do have
to read many messages, then just not multiple posting.
And, as mentioned, when you put a single comment in the middle of a large
body of quoted test you may as well just trust that fact thaht no one will
see it.
On the other hand, a short comment after each point that someone else makes
is very readable and makes perfect sense.
:> It makes a posting more readable, if the quoted passage is as short
:> as possible and reduced to the referred part only.
:>
:> … it’s pretty annoying to scroll 10k of text, just to find a
:> ‘me too’ at the very end – or worse: in between .
:>
: Absolutly! This was another point that I was going to make.
: In fact, I think that this would be more helpful to those of us that do have
: to read many messages, then just not multiple posting.
: And, as mentioned, when you put a single comment in the middle of a large
: body of quoted test you may as well just trust that fact thaht no one will
: see it.
: On the other hand, a short comment after each point that someone else makes
: is very readable and makes perfect sense.
:> It makes a posting more readable, if the quoted passage is as short
:> as possible and reduced to the referred part only.
:
:> … it’s pretty annoying to scroll 10k of text, just to find a
:> ‘me too’ at the very end – or worse: in between .
:
: Absolutly! This was another point that I was going to make.
: In fact, I think that this would be more helpful to those of us that do
have
: to read many messages, then just not multiple posting.
: And, as mentioned, when you put a single comment in the middle of a
large
: body of quoted test you may as well just trust that fact thaht no one
will
: see it.
: On the other hand, a short comment after each point that someone else
makes
: is very readable and makes perfect sense.
200% behind you.
I’ll try to make use of those ideas. It’s the simple thing that often makes
life easier If I sometime forget fell free to send me a reminder!
For the benefit of others: Sometimes I will post to one conference and wait
a few hours. If there is no useful responce, I may then post to a different
conference.
I think thaht this is perfectly justifiable.
But the reason for my RFC is simply, if most people believe that it is a
real nuesense to post to two groups then I will conceed and just not do it,
unless absolutely necessary. I’m just curious what most people think.
I’ve posted to multiple conferences, but I put a tag in saying “[posted to XXX as well]”
so that people at least have a heads up. The reasons for doing it are as Mario
and others have mentioned, not everyone reads every conference. This is
especially true with comp.os.qnx vs qdn.* conferences…
Not really being helpful, but posting anyway (and that’s not directed at anyone
in particular!)
“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote in message
news:9qetad$j3l$> 2@inn.qnx.com> …
I see to day that someone was critisized for posting a message in
multiple
conferences. This happenes at least every other day or so.
I feel this is directed at me > > I try to be informative and not to
“critisized”.
Now I agree that every now and then you will see a post in several/many
conferences, especially if the post is of an “advertisement” nature,
this
IS
VERY ANNOYING! But I find it almost as annoying every time someone
rakes
someone over the coals for posting in two conferences.
Point taken.
Often I will have a question that kind of relates to this and kind of
relates to that. I think that the right thing to do is to post a
message
in
both places. First of all, you are twice as likely to get your question
answered. But also, it informs people monitoring both conferences that
there may be an issue that requires attention.
Now for the record, I have read every single message in every single
conference (including the betas) all throughout this newsgroup and
through
the past three iterations of QUICS. (Going on 15 years). I understand
that
it is a little extra work to see the same message more than once. But
after
you read the first line of the message you don’t have to finish reading
it.
It’s that simple.
What do the rest of you think?
\
–
Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316.
Realtime Systems Architecture, Consulting and Training at www.parse.com
I try to be informative and not to
. It is just like everything