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

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Colin D, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. Colin D

    Colin D Guest

    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 D, Feb 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Colin D

    Nick Zentena Guest


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

    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Feb 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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 Graham, Feb 28, 2006
    #3
  4. 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, Feb 28, 2006
    #4
  5. 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
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 28, 2006
    #5
  6. 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...
     
    Another Made Up Name, Feb 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Nick wrote on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:18:01 -0500:

    NZ> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Colin D
    ??>>
    ??>> 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.
     
    James Silverton, Feb 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Colin D

    Helen Guest

    And since you have such strong views, what do you think about SHOUTING?
     
    Helen, Feb 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Colin D

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    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 Nixon, Feb 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Colin D

    That_Rich Guest

    I always trim the groups and reply ONLY to the group I am posting
    from.

    RP©
     
    That_Rich, Feb 28, 2006
    #10
  11. 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.)
    True, and it is an annoying abuse.
    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_.
    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.
    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, Feb 28, 2006
    #11
  12. From: "Colin D" <[email protected]>

    | 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.

    Always Cross-Post. This way all News Groups gather the same responses rather than different
    groups getting different responses. This way ALL benefit. just make sure that you are not
    excessively Cross-Posting and only Cross-Post to relevant, On Topic, News Groups.
     
    David H. Lipman, Feb 28, 2006
    #12
  13. Which is somewhat rude.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 1, 2006
    #13
  14. : 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.
    According to Australia's largest Internet provider:
    Posting to 2 groups is permitted. Posting to more than 2 groups is not
    condoned.
    People who actually bother to abide by the laws and rules or their ISP (all
    three of us), probably read this as absolute and make multiple posts to
    avoid breaking the rules.

    As much as it gets up people's noses, multi posting will continue just as
    long as you can't cross post to more than 2 groups and stay inside the
    rules.
     
    Tropical Treat, Mar 1, 2006
    #14
  15. Colin D

    That_Rich Guest

    Well I feel it is rude to x-post.
    To each his own, eh.

    RP©
     
    That_Rich, Mar 1, 2006
    #15
  16. Yes you are allowed to be irrational if you please.

    Cross-posting is *clearly* quite sensible. The mechanism for
    cross-posting was intentionally added to Usenet's functionality,
    and saying it is rude to use it appropriately is illogical.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 1, 2006
    #16
  17. Colin D

    That_Rich Guest

    I feel it's rude _and_ pure laziness to x-post, that makes me
    irrational(?) Perhaps you need some time off the tundra, Floyd.

    You are more than welcome to x-post. Makes no difference to me.

    RP©
     
    That_Rich, Mar 1, 2006
    #17
  18. Colin D

    Matt Clara Guest

    I always filter out any thread posted to more than two groups. I wouldn't
    have seen this one if you hadn't removed the extraneous groups. You
    bastard!
     
    Matt Clara, Mar 1, 2006
    #18
  19. Colin D

    That_Rich Guest

    Gee, thanks Matt :))
    Welcome to the irrational's.

    RP©
     
    That_Rich, Mar 1, 2006
    #19
  20. Of course. But if I am trying to reach the original poster, then what choice
    do I have? The only way to be sure of that, is to send my answer to all the
    groups on the header. Now, if you are suggesting that I don't answer cross
    posted emails at all, then yes.....I could do that. And, in many cases I
    don't answer such posts. But it does impose quite a restriction on me to
    have to check out the headers of every post. The best thing to do would be
    to find a program that automatically eliminates all cross posted messages,
    so I wouldn't even read them to begin with. I don't know of any such
    program, or how to do this with the software I have, which is Outlook
    Express for Windows XP.
     
    William Graham, Mar 1, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.