Re: Crossposting

Jim Lawton <ucan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2005 02:59:22 , "Stephen Hayes"
><Stephen.Hayesp0.f10.n7903.z8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>FamilyNet Newsgate
>>
>>Jim Lawton wrote in a message to All:
>>
>> JL> From: Jim Lawton <ucan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> JL> In my experience, I rarely need to cross-post, and when I need to I
>> JL> usually post the same item in each group as separate threads. Then
>> JL> it's up to me to pursue the answers in each group.

*DO NOT MULTIPOST*. Simple as that.

>>Thereby depriving others of useful responses that may be posted in different
>>groups.
>
>To resolve that it is oly necessary to add an "also posted in" line, and then
>those interested can go and have a look.

That does *not* resolve anything. In addition to fragmenting
responses, any response (as well as the original) must then be
transmitted and stored twice on every Usenet news server.

Multiposting is *inherently* bad, and should be avoided because
there simply are no benefits.

Crossposting was initially developed to provide a facility to
avoid the evils of multiposting. It is inherently a *good*
thing, but can obviously be abused.

The problems often attributed to crossposting actually has
little to do with crosposting, except as a demonstration of just
how effective crosposting is at what it is supposed to do.

Both off topic posts and trolls are problems often laid at the
doorstep of crossposting. But in fact crossposting is merely
an amplifier that makes both of those problems more noticeable.
The solution, however, is *not* to claim crossposting is the
cause, because it is not.

>>That's multiposting, which is more often bad than crossposting.

Multiposting is *always* bad. Crossposting is effective.

>Why?

This is a short article, and I can't say that I'm necessarily
explaining it in a way that anyone and everyone will understand.
If "Why?" is still a question for you, point out what doesn't
make sense, and I'll try to both restate it in different terms
and find a few URLs on the net that also discuss it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question About Cat Behavior...
    ... It's important to me to get responses quickly, ... but not as much so as multiposting. ... usenet providers block crossposting (it isn't practical to block ...
    (rec.pets.cats.rescue)
  • Re: Which Digital SLR - Canon 350 D / Olympus E300 / Pentax *ist
    ... crossposting is certainly valid, ... that general Usenet guidelines should be followed. ... multiposting and crossposting, although it's clear that multiposting is always ... Most of the posters in 'my' groups have ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Crossposting
    ... >>>Thereby depriving others of useful responses that may be posted in different ... >Multiposting is *inherently* bad, ... >Crossposting was initially developed to provide a facility to ... No, don't bother,thanks, because I neither cross-post, nor in general ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: IE does not open the set default mail client after instlalling Windows Live Mail
    ... Thank you for the definition of crossposting vs multiposting. ... these newsgroups, some of which were rather negative responses, like a slap ... was because I didn't see a response to my original post in WLM. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser)
  • Re: Correct way to control alias of a NIC interface from application running as non-root
    ... who see it twice can just ignore it when they see it second time. ... usage on the news-servers and less bandwidth usage to the newreader (some ... If person in group B had seen the reply in group A via crossposting, ... Anyway thanks for ur reply and suggestions about multiposting. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)