OT: When is a Usenet post too stale to reply to?

[Jay]

This would not matter to those who use the Google Groups archive. But
for those who use real news servers with short retentions, the earlier
part of the thread might have expired.

At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
resurrect an old one?

Thanks - J.

 

[John Henderson]

Jay wrote:

> This would not matter to those who use the Google Groups
> archive. But for those who use real news servers with short
> retentions, the earlier part of the thread might have expired.
>
> At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
> resurrect an old one?

It depends on the retention period of the news server you're
using to fetch the posts from. That's likely to be somewhere
between 1 and 6 months, and can vary with the perceived
importance of the particular group as well.

If you quote as much as possible from a stale thread in your
reply, it might remove the need for others to consult the
google groups archive for context.

John

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<5dee7f1d-4320-4500-a5b7-86b59c72ee50@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Jay <[email protected]> wrote:

> This would not matter to those who use the Google Groups archive. But
> for those who use real news servers with short retentions, the
> earlier part of the thread might have expired.
>
> At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
> resurrect an old one?

Seven years.

 

[still just me]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:30:00 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
>> resurrect an old one?
>
>Seven years.

Well, some posters here think it's necessary to quote seven years
worth of the thread every time they followup/post.

 

[Jay]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:30:00 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
>>> resurrect an old one?
>>
>>Seven years.
>
> Well, some posters here think it's necessary to quote seven years
> worth of the thread every time they followup/post.
>
True; but I think that is why the 'Page Down' and 'End' keys were invented.

Unless I am missing something obvious, which is certainly possible.

J.

 

[Jay]

"John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jay wrote:
>
>> This would not matter to those who use the Google Groups
>> archive. But for those who use real news servers with short
>> retentions, the earlier part of the thread might have expired.
>>
>> At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
>> resurrect an old one?
>
> It depends on the retention period of the news server you're
> using to fetch the posts from. That's likely to be somewhere
> between 1 and 6 months, and can vary with the perceived
> importance of the particular group as well.
>
> If you quote as much as possible from a stale thread in your
> reply, it might remove the need for others to consult the
> google groups archive for context.
>
> John
>
I agree.

I think your 'quote from the stale thread' rec is a good strategy.

Thanks - J.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:30:00 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <5dee7f1d-4320-4500-a5b7-86b59c72ee50@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jay <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> This would not matter to those who use the Google Groups archive. But
> >> for those who use real news servers with short retentions, the earlier
> >> part of the thread might have expired.
> >>
> >> At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
> >> resurrect an old one?
> >
> >Seven years.
>
> Well, some posters here think it's necessary to quote seven years
> worth of the thread every time they followup/post.

Who might that be? ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:01:17 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:30:00 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <5dee7f1d-4320-4500-a5b7-86b59c72ee50@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Jay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> This would not matter to those who use the Google Groups archive. But
>> >> for those who use real news servers with short retentions, the earlier
>> >> part of the thread might have expired.
>> >>
>> >> At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
>> >> resurrect an old one?
>> >
>> >Seven years.
>>
>> Well, some posters here think it's necessary to quote seven years
>> worth of the thread every time they followup/post.
>
>Who might that be? ;-)

Dear Tim,

I have no idea.

Recently I've had some emails about some browsers in which replies
truncate a long url that worked in the original post.

That is, people reading a reply were clicking on a link that should
have been preserved in the reply, but it had been truncated by the
browser and no longer worked.

They had to email me for the original link or else go up to the
original post to get it.

Google Groups seems to avoid this.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Jay" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:30:00 -0600, Tim McNamara
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>> At what point is it better to start a new thread, rather than
> >>> resurrect an old one?
> >>
> >>Seven years.
> >
> > Well, some posters here think it's necessary to quote seven years
> > worth of the thread every time they followup/post.
> >
> True; but I think that is why the 'Page Down' and 'End' keys were invented.
>
> Unless I am missing something obvious, which is certainly possible.

Obvious? I do not know. My `End', `Page Down', and `Page Up' keys work fine.
I get folks *****ing me out for not trimming who have no interest
in the dialog. Go figure.

--
Michael Press

 

[still just me]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:26:44 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Obvious? I do not know. My `End', `Page Down', and `Page Up' keys work fine.
>I get folks *****ing me out for not trimming who have no interest
>in the dialog. Go figure.

Actually, they have little interest in scrolling through 250 lines of
a thread which they, and anyone else who is interested in the
discussion, have already read. (And anyone who has not can easily go
back and read the thread from its origins).

There's no excuse for not trimming.

 

[Jay]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:26:44 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Obvious? I do not know. My `End', `Page Down', and `Page Up' keys work
>>fine.
>>I get folks *****ing me out for not trimming who have no interest
>>in the dialog. Go figure.
>
> Actually, they have little interest in scrolling through 250 lines of
> a thread which they, and anyone else who is interested in the
> discussion, have already read. (And anyone who has not can easily go
> back and read the thread from its origins).
>
> There's no excuse for not trimming.
>
I have not tried every news reader, but with OE, there is no scrolling
involved. A single key press (End) displays the most recent reply, assuming
it was bottom-posted. It might be necessary to first click a single time in
the bottom pane, so that pane has the focus, and then click 'End'.

I usually trim, because I like to be efficient. But if some people want to
explicitly cite everything which has gone before, for completeness,
laziness, whatever, it does not bother me.

J.

 

[still just me]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:08:24 -0600, "Jay" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I have not tried every news reader, but with OE, there is no scrolling
>involved. A single key press (End) displays the most recent reply, assuming
>it was bottom-posted. It might be necessary to first click a single time in
>the bottom pane, so that pane has the focus, and then click 'End'.
>
>I usually trim, because I like to be efficient. But if some people want to
>explicitly cite everything which has gone before, for completeness,
>laziness, whatever, it does not bother me.
>
>J.


I don't use OE/newsgroups, but I'll make the wild assumption that
pressing "end" brings you to the bottom of the post. If someone has
added information within the untrimmed reply, you will miss it.

I don't think there's any excuse for not trimming. But, it's a free
world, they can do as they wish. They should probably know that many
people simply ignore their elongated posts because they are a PITA to
deal with.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:26:44 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Obvious? I do not know. My `End', `Page Down', and `Page Up' keys work fine.
> >I get folks *****ing me out for not trimming who have no interest
> >in the dialog. Go figure.
>
> Actually, they have little interest in scrolling through 250 lines of
> a thread which they, and anyone else who is interested in the
> discussion, have already read. (And anyone who has not can easily go
> back and read the thread from its origins).
>
> There's no excuse for not trimming.

Oft times there are reasons for leaving in material.

--
Michael Press

 

[Jay]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:26:44 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Obvious? I do not know. My `End', `Page Down', and `Page Up' keys work
>>fine.
>>I get folks *****ing me out for not trimming who have no interest
>>in the dialog. Go figure.
>
> Actually, they have little interest in scrolling through 250 lines of
> a thread which they, and anyone else who is interested in the
> discussion, have already read. (And anyone who has not can easily go
> back and read the thread from its origins).
>
> There's no excuse for not trimming.
>
To my way of thinking, the most annoying posters intersperse their replies
into the preceding context. This forces those who reply later, to try to
sort that mess out, and scroll through the entire thing to do so. I
understand they are just trying to be precise, but I simply hereby give them
the grade of F, regardless of their good intentions. They have failed
miserably, which is my measure of grade F.

J.

 

[still just me]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:32:17 -0800, Michael Press <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> There's no excuse for not trimming.
>
>Oft times there are reasons for leaving in material.

Absolutely. You leave enough material to draw the context of the
CURRENT reply. You shouldn't leave and entire thread there - that
purpose is served by the very idea of the "thread".

If everyone just leaves the preceding post in place in it's entirety,
we might as well redesign the usenet to simply have the latest post
force the server to delete all proceeding posts !

 

[Jay]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:32:17 -0800, Michael Press <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> There's no excuse for not trimming.
>>
>>Oft times there are reasons for leaving in material.
>
> Absolutely. You leave enough material to draw the context of the
> CURRENT reply. You shouldn't leave and entire thread there - that
> purpose is served by the very idea of the "thread".
>
> If everyone just leaves the preceding post in place in it's entirety,
> we might as well redesign the usenet to simply have the latest post
> force the server to delete all proceeding posts !
>
Yes, in theory, that might appear to be possible. But only to those who do
not understand the distributed nature of the NNTP protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_News_Transfer_Protocol .

There is no one server, to be reconfigured. There are thousands of NNTP
servers, distributed worldwide.

J.

 

[Tom Sherman]

still just me wrote:
> ...
> There's no excuse for not trimming.

Unless one is engaging in a drawn out flame war - then it is best to
quote everything.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

 

[Tom Sherman]

Jay Bollyn wrote:
>
> To my way of thinking, the most annoying posters intersperse their replies
> into the preceding context. This forces those who reply later, to try to
> sort that mess out, and scroll through the entire thing to do so. I
> understand they are just trying to be precise, but I simply hereby give them
> the grade of F, regardless of their good intentions. They have failed
> miserably, which is my measure of grade F.

Nonsense. Interleaved replies makes it obvious what particular portion
of the preceding post the new text is a response to. Top posting is so
annoying, since it makes this interleaving impossible without
reformatting the quoted post first.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> still just me wrote:
> > ...
> > There's no excuse for not trimming.
>
> Unless one is engaging in a drawn out flame war - then it is best to
> quote everything.

Yes. I was trying to be delicate about it, but was
stupid instead. When the dialogue is contentious
full quoting is in order.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:26:44 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Obvious? I do not know. My `End', `Page Down', and `Page Up' keys work fine.
> >I get folks *****ing me out for not trimming who have no interest
> >in the dialog. Go figure.
>
> Actually, they have little interest in scrolling through 250 lines of
> a thread which they, and anyone else who is interested in the
> discussion, have already read. (And anyone who has not can easily go
> back and read the thread from its origins).
>
> There's no excuse for not trimming.

Actually, they contribute nothing to the dialogue
in the cases I have in mind, and manifest no interest
in the content; but simply chime in with "Trim your posts."

--
Michael Press