Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Stop with the [News] postings already!!!

  • Subject: Re: Stop with the [News] postings already!!!
  • From: JEDIDIAH <jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:54:36 -0500
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Superfeed.net
  • References: <LLednXVkNq_WynnZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com> <s2qfr3-rnn.ln1@nomad.mishnet> <ty5ci64yl7r6.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
  • User-agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Debian)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1142082
On 2006-08-18, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:51:24 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2006-08-17, mlw <mlw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I know you probably mean well, but it is behaving more like spam than actual
>>> advocacy. It is getting in the way of seeing/finding discussions. 
>> 
>> 	How? They're rediculously well marked. You could just put it 
>> in your killfile and never know those messages were there.
>
> There are at least 5 reasons.
>
> 1)  The volume of messages are such that unless you're using a news server
> with monstrous retention times, it causes newsgroup content to get purged
> very quickly.

	If you aren't doing this then there's ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN USING
USENET AT ALL.

>
> 2) He uses deceptively crafted headlines to imply (and sometimes outright
> state) things that the stories themselves don't support.

	So? Just tag 'em and bag 'em.

>
> 3) He marks all kinds of content as "news" that isn't such as several year
> old Howto's.

	So? Just tag 'em and bag 'em.

>
> 4) He publishes so much stuff, he doesn't even realize when he's posting
> the same story multiple times.

	So? Just tag 'em and bag 'em.

>
> 5) The Signal to noise ratio hasn't gone down, in fact, it's gone up.  This

	...except a lot of the new noise is REALLY REALLY EASY to filter
that out.

	If you don't like it, you don't have to see it.

	Technology is great when you actually bother to use it.

[deletia]
>> 	Then potential items of interest are no longer "indexed" so that
>> you don't have to pay attention to items you have no real interest. So 
>> instead of just skimming through the crap you have to wade hip deep in it.
>
> They're not "indexed" that way now, since Roy's subjet headers seldom have
> much to do with the actual contents of his messages.  Further, history has
> shown that threads seldom stay related to their subjects.

	Even a poor index is still an index.

-- 
	Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their    |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider.  / | \

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index