I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
> x-no-archive:On 13 Dec, 00:36, JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It means I shan't be taking lessons in usenet posting from anyone
> > posting via the web.
>
> Yes, I got that bit, but what is it about posting directly onto a
> google group that has ****led you? Surely those using newsreaders are
> similarly inconvenienced by lazy snippers, or am I missing something?
Google now is much like AOL then.
In general, people using google groups tend to be less likely to stick
around and form any sort of community. They are more likely to post a
question and never show up again, more likely to post a question that
even a few moment's effort on their own part would answer, more likely
to post rubbish and more likely to get arsey if any of this is pointed
out to them.
I've seen it claimed that the ratio of posts originating from google
can be correlated to the community feeling and civility of a group.
While I don't think it's been studied properly, it would certainly not
surprise me to discover that it's true.
Strictly, I don't think it's exclusively google's fault - I think it's
pretty much any web-based forum or interface that encourages this -
witness the dross that we get here from cycling forums. google is the
one that stands out only because it's the one with the most users.
That's doubly reinforcing - having the most users, it probably also
attracts the most naive users too.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
> x-no-archive:On 13 Dec, 00:36, JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It means I shan't be taking lessons in usenet posting from anyone
> > posting via the web.
>
> Yes, I got that bit, but what is it about posting directly onto a
> google group that has ****led you? Surely those using newsreaders are
> similarly inconvenienced by lazy snippers, or am I missing something?
Google now is much like AOL then.
In general, people using google groups tend to be less likely to stick
around and form any sort of community. They are more likely to post a
question and never show up again, more likely to post a question that
even a few moment's effort on their own part would answer, more likely
to post rubbish and more likely to get arsey if any of this is pointed
out to them.
I've seen it claimed that the ratio of posts originating from google
can be correlated to the community feeling and civility of a group.
While I don't think it's been studied properly, it would certainly not
surprise me to discover that it's true.
Strictly, I don't think it's exclusively google's fault - I think it's
pretty much any web-based forum or interface that encourages this -
witness the dross that we get here from cycling forums. google is the
one that stands out only because it's the one with the most users.
That's doubly reinforcing - having the most users, it probably also
attracts the most naive users too.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|