In need of c.l.p.discussion

[Rune Steffensen]

I've been lurking c.l.p for a while now, and find the amount of messages
a bit annoying. To solve this, I suggest the creation of the new group
"comp.lang.pyhon.discussions".
So when people post questions to c.l.p, they will get all the (more or
less) helpfull answers there, but as soon as a discussion arise over an
issue, one can Xfut to c.l.p.d. This way, the useful knowledge will not
drown in the ocean of subjective opinions.

Any comments on this?

 

[Mark Jackson]

I've been lurking c.l.p for a while now, and find the amount of messages
a bit annoying. To solve this, I suggest the creation of the new group
"comp.lang.pyhon.discussions".
So when people post questions to c.l.p, they will get all the (more or
less) helpfull answers there, but as soon as a discussion arise over an
issue, one can Xfut to c.l.p.d. This way, the useful knowledge will not
drown in the ocean of subjective opinions.

Any comments on this?

Absent actual moderation your scheme depends on each poster deciding
whether his or her contribution constitutes "useful knowledge" or
"subjective opinion." I confidently predict that, if implemented, the
noise reduction which results will be swamped by the noise increase
occasioned by arguments over whether a particular posting was
misclassified or not.

And that's a knowledge-based projection.

 

[Matthew Wilson]

The way I handle this mailing list is to view everything in threads, and
then just ignore the vast majority of threads that don't interest me (like
this damn lisp-vs-python pissing contest).

 

[Daniel Dittmar]

Absent actual moderation your scheme depends on each poster deciding
whether his or her contribution constitutes "useful knowledge" or
"subjective opinion." I confidently predict that, if implemented, the
noise reduction which results will be swamped by the noise increase
occasioned by arguments over whether a particular posting was
misclassified or not.

But couldn't we use SpamBayes for this? It probably wouldn't require
much teaching so that any post containing 'ternary', 'lisp' or
'overloading assignment' goes straight to c.l.p.fistfights.

Daniel

 

[Erik Max Francis]

Any comments on this?

First, due to the anarchic nature of Usenet, there is on possible way
this could work. There's be no incentive to get people to do this, and
there'd be no way to enforce it when they didn't. I've never heard of
an existing newsgroup that reliably operates the way you describe, so
you're talking about something without precedent. Besides, that's what
comp.lang.python is _for_ -- discussion.

Second, remember that comp.lang.python is also gated to a mailing list.
Unless you gate both to separate lists, then the people on the mailing
list suddenly see discussions disappear.

 

[Rune Steffensen]

Mark Jackson meditated and wrote something like this:

Absent actual moderation your scheme depends on each poster deciding
whether his or her contribution constitutes "useful knowledge" or
"subjective opinion."

Would it not be enough for one poster in each thread to be sensible and
Xfut? Decent news clients would then handle the followup header correct
on subsequent replies.

I confidently predict that, if implemented, the
noise reduction which results will be swamped by the noise increase
occasioned by arguments over whether a particular posting was
misclassified or not.

You are probably right about this!

 

[Rune Steffensen]

Erik Max Francis meditated and wrote something like this:

First, due to the anarchic nature of Usenet, there is on possible way
this could work.

Really? It works quite nice in the no.* hierarchy, if not always, it DO
reduce the noise.

There's be no incentive to get people to do this, and
there'd be no way to enforce it when they didn't.

Of course not, but it would be in their own interest, and there are
surprisingly many sensible people out there.

I've never heard of
an existing newsgroup that reliably operates the way you describe, so
you're talking about something without precedent.

Well, see above.
We don't need reliability: if just a couple of people in a thread takes
responsiblity the mess would be considerably reduced.

Besides, that's what
comp.lang.python is _for_ -- discussion.

About _python_ yes, not about lisp or scheme.

Second, remember that comp.lang.python is also gated to a mailing list.
Unless you gate both to separate lists, then the people on the mailing
list suddenly see discussions disappear.

I didn't know this, and I can see a slight problem. However, when a thread
disapears to another group, it should already be _off_topic_ (that's the
whole point, remember?), so in most cases, I guess this would be more of a
relief to the subscribers, than annoyance.

 

[Rune Steffensen]

Matthew Wilson meditated and wrote something like this:

The way I handle this mailing list is to view everything in threads, and
then just ignore the vast majority of threads that don't interest me
(like
this damn lisp-vs-python pissing contest).

Yes, or you could just tell your client to kill this thread.
My problem, is that I am currently not working with python, but probably
will do in the future, therefore I am just following this group with half
an eye, and it would be to much work to maintain rules of filtering.
With less off-topic postings, it would be far easier to spot the real
gems.

 

[Erik Max Francis]

Really? It works quite nice in the no.* hierarchy, if not always, it
DO
reduce the noise.

This is not the no.* hierarchy. This is either the Big Eight, or a
mailing list.

Well, see above.
We don't need reliability: if just a couple of people in a thread
takes
responsiblity the mess would be considerably reduced.

That sounds dubious. I can only imagine that on the Big Eight such a
policy would devolve into constant crossposting between the two groups.
There'd be no way to stop it, and trying to move a thread from one to
the other would always result in some people crossposting to both
(either because they don't want it moved since they don't read the other
group or to be difficult). Without moderation there would be no way to
enforce this, and there is no policy in place to change the moderation
status of Big Eight groups.

In effect, what you ask for is already the way things work.
Announcements are for comp.lang.python.announce (moderated), and
discussion is for comp.lang.python (unmoderated). You're just in the
wrong newsgroup .

About _python_ yes, not about lisp or scheme.

A far better solution to your problem -- namely avoiding threads you do
not want to see -- is to just use a killfile. Even really lousy
newsreaders, like the one I still use, tend to have "ignore thread"
abilities. When the Lisp/Scheme chatter started up, I just ignored the
thread and never saw it again.

Further, as other people have pointed out, what you consider
"information" vs. "discussion" is a subjective call, just like it would
be for everybody.

What you're trying to do is impose your subjective wishes on a
community. It is true that comp.lang.python has rather high traffic,
but even fragmentation isn't going to drastically change that; if you
subscribe to the newsgroup/mailing list, you know what you're deal with.

So the proper solution here for you is to simply use your newsreader to
filter out the threads that you don't want to read. The type of
filtering you want is much better done on a per-reader basis, not
globally.

 

[Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]

|Would it not be enough for one poster in each thread to be sensible and
|Xfut? Decent news clients would then handle the followup header correct
|on subsequent replies.

Nope, doesn't work that way. When a particular poster redirects to the
hypothetical discussion group, only responses to that specific post get
redirected--and that specific post almost always says only "hey guys,
let's move the discussion"... which, of course, no one has any interest
in responding to (neither those who agree nor those who
disagree--there's not much more to be said).

Moreover, even in the rare case that a post with content people want to
resond to gets the redirect, that basically just kills it, because
(practically) nobody bother to follow the discussion group. A response
to the group redirect is about the same thing as a redirect to
/dev/null. Perhaps one might reasonably want many threads to go there,
but those in the discussion usually don't.

Yours, Lulu...

 

[Klaus Alexander Seistrup]

Announcements are for comp.lang.python.announce (moderated), and
discussion is for comp.lang.python (unmoderated).

(Except many tend to announce in both groups. :-()


// Klaus

--

 

[Peter Hansen]

(Except many tend to announce in both groups. :-()

I believe the mailing list gates only comp.lang.python, so
announcements in c.l.p.a alone would be missed by many who
read only via email. Conversely, posts to c.l.p alone will
of course often get lost in the noise, so consequently one
feels somewhat obliged to post to both.

-Peter

 

[Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]

|Would it not be enough for one poster in each thread to be sensible and
|Xfut? Decent news clients would then handle the followup header correct
|on subsequent replies.

Nope, doesn't work that way. When a particular poster redirects to the
hypothetical discussion group, only responses to that specific post get
redirected--and that specific post almost always says only "hey guys,
let's move the discussion"... which, of course, no one has any interest
in responding to (neither those who agree nor those who
disagree--there's not much more to be said).

Moreover, even in the rare case that a post with content people want to
resond to gets the redirect, that basically just kills it, because
(practically) nobody bother to follow the discussion group. A response
to the group redirect is about the same thing as a redirect to
/dev/null. Perhaps one might reasonably want many threads to go there,
but those in the discussion usually don't.

Yours, Lulu...

 

[Rune Steffensen]

Erik Max Francis meditated and wrote something like this:

That sounds dubious. I can only imagine that on the Big Eight such a
policy would devolve into constant crossposting between the two groups.
There'd be no way to stop it, and trying to move a thread from one to
the other would always result in some people crossposting to both
(either because they don't want it moved since they don't read the other
group or to be difficult). Without moderation there would be no way to
enforce this, and there is no policy in place to change the moderation
status of Big Eight groups.

Of course you are right, I've seen my part of the net. I'm not asking for
perfection, just a possibility to appeal to peoples rationality.

[snip]

You're just in the wrong newsgroup .



A far better solution to your problem -- namely avoiding threads you do
not want to see -- is to just use a killfile.

I know. But, as I said in another posting in this thread, I'm not using
python in an active way these days, even if I probably will in the
future. So the maintainance would need more work, than the delete-
strategy.

Even really lousy newsreaders, like the one I still use

[snip]

If you think Mozilla sucks, give Opera a try. I've been using it for news
for some weeks now, and I'm very satisfied.

Further, as other people have pointed out, what you consider
"information" vs. "discussion" is a subjective call, just like it would
be for everybody.

Right, but with a lot of people out there, some subjective calls will be
the same for a lot of them.

What you're trying to do is impose your subjective wishes on a
community.

Surely, you don't mean that? If I had tried to _impose_ anything, I
wouldn't have requested comments. And I would have changed the word
"suggest" to "demand".

It is true that comp.lang.python has rather high traffic,
but even fragmentation isn't going to drastically change that; if you
subscribe to the newsgroup/mailing list, you know what you're deal with.

I didn't, but I do.

 

[Klaus Alexander Seistrup]

I believe the mailing list gates only comp.lang.python, so
announcements in c.l.p.a alone would be missed by many who
read only via email. Conversely, posts to c.l.p alone will
of course often get lost in the noise, so consequently one
feels somewhat obliged to post to both.

You're probably right, but even gating a big8 newsgroup to a
mailing list is a mess in my opinion.


// Klaus

--

 

[David M. Cook]

I've been lurking c.l.p for a while now, and find the amount of messages
a bit annoying.

I don't see the need. Most posts here are on topic. You just need the
discipline to ignore threads once they start to drift, or to hit "mark all
read" (slrn uses the 'c' key which stands for "catch up", I believe) now and
then.

To solve this, I suggest the creation of the new group
"comp.lang.pyhon.discussions".
So when people post questions to c.l.p, they will get all the (more or
less) helpfull answers there, but as soon as a discussion arise over an
issue, one can Xfut to c.l.p.d.

It simply wouldn't happen. Some people would not know how to do this,
some would forget, and some wouldn't bother. And where is the dividing line?

Dave Cook

 

[Rune Steffensen]

David M. Cook meditated and wrote something like this:

I don't see the need. Most posts here are on topic. You just need the
discipline to ignore threads once they start to drift, or to hit "mark
all
read" (slrn uses the 'c' key which stands for "catch up", I believe) now
and
then.

Believe me, I do have that discipline, I just find it a bit tiresome.
Also, one of the weaknesses of my client (Opera, m2), is that you have to
do this kind of deletion one time for each level of a thread.

It simply wouldn't happen. Some people would not know how to do this,
some would forget, and some wouldn't bother. And where is the dividing
line?

Well, I think that this view is a bit pessimistic, if only "a bit".

Since I can count the support for my suggestion on NO hands, I can
promise you that I will suggest this never again!
On this group, that is.
And maybe.

 

[Cameron Laird]

.
.
.

My problem, is that I am currently not working with python, but probably
will do in the future, therefore I am just following this group with half
an eye, and it would be to much work to maintain rules of filtering.
With less off-topic postings, it would be far easier to spot the real
gems.

.
.
.
You might find it useful to read one of the Python news
digests (<URL: http://www.ddj.com/topics/pythonurl/ >
leads to several) rather than clp directly.

 

[Bengt Richter]

So the proper solution here for you is to simply use your newsreader to
filter out the threads that you don't want to read. The type of
filtering you want is much better done on a per-reader basis, not
globally.

It strikes me that something could be done to make filtering more effective.
Maybe adding a marker and/or a keyword line to particularly good posts. I.e.,
those that explain something unusually well, or present something easy to miss
in the docs, or report bug status and demonstrate the bug. Etc.

[OT] in the subject line helps a little. Likewise [ANN] etc. (Is there an official
collection of these?)

Maybe someone with too much time can come up with a clpy-code rating for clpy posts,
analogous to geek-code. Just kidding.

But when a thread winds up with a "keeper" maybe we could mark it [keeper] some place?
Keeping in mind googlability.

What's a good keyword list to choose from to classify posts?

Regards,
Bengt Richter

 

[Michael Hudson]

A far better solution to your problem -- namely avoiding threads you do
not want to see -- is to just use a killfile.

I know. But, as I said in another posting in this thread, I'm not using
python in an active way these days, even if I probably will in the
future. So the maintainance would need more work, than the delete-
strategy.

Even really lousy newsreaders, like the one I still use

[snip]

If you think Mozilla sucks, give Opera a try. I've been using it for news
for some weeks now, and I'm very satisfied.

Doesn't Opera have a way of saying "I never want to see this thread
again"? If it doesn't, I suggest finding a newsreader that does.

If *that's* too much maintenence for you, not reading the list at all
sounds the most sensible option.

Cheers,
mwh