Re: No-quoting isn't "bad". (was: newsgroups)
- From: SINNER <99nesorjd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:30:11 GMT
* Frank Slootweg wrote in news.software.readers:
> [Note: Subject: changed]
> Blinky the Shark <no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
>> > Case in point: I could have posted just my first paragraph (without
>> > any quoting) and with proper threading and a 'show parent article'
>> > facility, no-one should have any problem knowing what I was talking
>> > about or/and who I was talking 'to'.
>> I don't deny that there are workarounds for bad posting.
> The point is that it isn't "bad posting", it's just *different* than
> you're used to. Face it, in a real life conversation we don't 'quote'
> (repeat) what the other person has just said, do we? No, we just respond
> and, when needed, we put a reference to the context in our response. (As
> I mentioned,)
Totally different medium and the main feature of that medium that may
or may not be lacking in Usenet is that both parties are present when
the conversation is taking place and saying "what?" isn't nearly as rude as
expecting someone to retype the whole post. Usenet threads carry on for
days/weeks... etc but server retention does not.
> Those methods work fine in Usenet as well.
Not if the previous post is not available.
> It's just the
> broken software and servers which have 'made' us get used to the
> quote-response method of responding.
How are the servers broken? As for broken software its not the reason
for the quote, its that the broken software does it badly and makes it
difficult to read.
> Having come from the no-quoting-
> neccessary camp, no less than (more than) *two decades* ago, I can
> understand the GG users' methods full well.
Change is sometimes better, in the case of leaving the quote, my vote is
that it is a better method.
The majority of today's GG users are those that lost the ability to post
when AOL dropped Usenet access or previous users of Google's Usenet
access. It would be silly to assume the majority of GG2 users are new or
have never been exposed to Usenet before.
> When we get a new bunch of users, they start using what seems natural
> to them. I.e. OE users top-post and bottom-quote [1], not because they
> decided to, but because that't what their UI 'happens' to do. Same with
> GG users. They don't quote, because their UI doesn't,
But it DID at one time.
> and they do not
> see or even realize the need for quoting because they can follow the
> discussion just fine. Then old farts like you and me come along and say
> they post "badly". I can't blame them for thinking that *we* are the
> idiots.
When you use a piece of software everyday, you become used to how it
works, you expect to see certain things. When those things change you
take notice and generally ask questions. The fact that we are creatures
of habit and take time to adapt to change should trigger a different
response.
> And don't get me wrong: Sometimes, and perhaps even often, the
> interleaved (quote, response, quote, response, ...) method of responding
> is 'better'/'easier'/'more_efficient', but that doesn't meant that it is
> always 'needed'/'better'/etc..
Needed I can go with, but better....
--
David
There is no such thing as an ugly woman -- there are only the ones who do
not know how to make themselves attractive.
-- Christian Dior
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No-quoting isn't "bad".
- From: Frank Slootweg
- Re: No-quoting isn't "bad". (was: newsgroups)
- From: XS11E
- Re: No-quoting isn't "bad".
- References:
- Re: newsgroups
- From: Frank Slootweg
- Re: newsgroups
- From: Blinky the Shark
- Re: newsgroups
- From: Frank Slootweg
- Re: newsgroups
- From: Blinky the Shark
- No-quoting isn't "bad". (was: newsgroups)
- From: Frank Slootweg
- Re: newsgroups
- Prev by Date: Re: Google Groups filtering emails?
- Next by Date: Re: No-quoting isn't "bad". (was: newsgroups)
- Previous by thread: Re: No-quoting isn't "bad".
- Next by thread: Re: No-quoting isn't "bad". (was: newsgroups)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
