Battleship

[Default User]

Default User wrote:

[Google Groups posting problems]

I personally think it would be a good idea, not only we'd stop
repeating the same thing, but it could actually educate some (provided
they read the faq before posting here, which is another discussion).

I don't know how much good it would do as a preventative. Google users
are often brand-new to usenet, and tend not to search out the FAQs.
However, it would be handy to have a FAQ entry to direct them towards.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the Google uses. The company
doesn't make it easy on them. I had to use GG for about 4 months at the
start of 2005, and it wasn't pleasant. Some people have taken to
filtering the entire Google domain, but I think on the whole they are
as prone to be good group members as anyone else, once they know what
to do and how to do it.



Brian

 

[osmium]

Default User wrote:

[Google Groups posting problems]

I personally think it would be a good idea, not only we'd stop
repeating the same thing, but it could actually educate some (provided
they read the faq before posting here, which is another discussion).

I don't know how much good it would do as a preventative.

Apparently, someone in the distant past thought that if someone provided a
FAQ, someone else would read it. To argue against including something
because it probably won't be read seems defeatist to me. Without doubt, the
problem and solution should be in the FAQ.

Google seems to have decided they will be leaders not followers. I would
certainly endorse a total boycott of all these crappy disjointed posts that
don't meet a certain standard. But it's not going to happen.

 

[Default User]

Default User wrote:

[Google Groups posting problems]

I'm not sure how the group at large feels about the situation. On
comp.lang.c, it's obvious, the group is pretty militant about
instructing the Google users. Here it's a bit more hit and miss.

I personally think it would be a good idea, not only we'd stop
repeating the same thing, but it could actually educate some
(provided they read the faq before posting here, which is another
discussion).

I don't know how much good it would do as a preventative.

Apparently, someone in the distant past thought that if someone
provided a FAQ, someone else would read it. To argue against
including something because it probably won't be read seems defeatist
to me. Without doubt, the problem and solution should be in the FAQ.

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not at all against having it in the FAQ,
and it indeed might clue in some people. I don't don't believe it would
have a large role in preventing the problem. The real solution would be
for Google to change their interface.

My reason for not putting it forward to Marshall is that I'm not sure
what the overall feeling of the newsgroup is. It's seemed to me that
more people are complaining about the quoting of late, but I don't have
any real gauge.

Google seems to have decided they will be leaders not followers. I
would certainly endorse a total boycott of all these crappy
disjointed posts that don't meet a certain standard. But it's not
going to happen.

Agreed, and it's not something I would do. There are good, responsible
people out there using Google to the best of their abilities.





Brian

 

[Mraco G.]

Doing what? Please quote as Jonathan asked.

ROFL!!
Sorry this is one of the most stupid flame posts i've read in a while.
The answer to the question you "ask" is in the same post you refer
to(the one Jonathan wrote), the one you supposedly "never" saw.

At least you could "try" to make it look as if your "question" had any
other intention than to bash "gonzo86"...

 

[Ian Collins]

ROFL!!
Sorry this is one of the most stupid flame posts i've read in a while.
The answer to the question you "ask" is in the same post you refer
to(the one Jonathan wrote), the one you supposedly "never" saw.

No, it was a polite request to quote. I didn't make any claims.

At least you could "try" to make it look as if your "question" had any
other intention than to bash "gonzo86"...

It didn't 'bash' anyone and it had the desired effect.

Many new users of google groups don't realise they are using Usenet and
other users may not see what they are replying to without having to look
back though previous messages (which, at least in theory, they may not
have seen).

In most cases, a gentle hint and a pointer to posting guidelines (which
I should have included) puts them straight.