|
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online
| [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26210] |
Mi, 27 April 2005 08:03 |
|
Advice for Google Groups users now available in html here:
http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/afp/afpgooglefaq.htm
I will host this at least for the time being so that I can make any
changes that are requested. I advise against linking to it from
websites pending a decision about where to host it permanently.
The screenshots are not used, but thanks to everyone who sent me one.
I appreciate comments, especially from newcomers. Let me know if I can
make the document more useful in any way.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26232 ] |
Mi, 27 April 2005 12:11 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> Advice for Google Groups users now available in html here:
>
> http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/afp/afpgooglefaq.htm
"In a nutshell: Google Groups has serious problems. If you understand
those problems and how to negate them, you can be part of the solution."
serious problems? not really, it has problems that affect afp. It has
foibles, but so do most newsreaders.
"Herein, the following issues are addressed:"
I'd turn the following points to 'in document' links, and trun them
into a list.
"If this document is less helpful than it could be, then please email
dragon at netyp dot com dot au to describe how it could be improved."
I'd suggest that the email address be a correct and valid mailto link.
"Above the message you wish to reply to, you will see a link that says
"show options"."
I'd suggest a screenshot of this, but only because you have a screen
shot of an empty textarea!
"Google Groups is the cause of considerable recent disruption to
alt.fan.pratchett's tagging system."
I'm still not convinced, yes there has been a number of more untagged
posts, but I haven't noticed it being that much of a problem myself,
mind you I don't even even look for a tag anymore, except perhaps an [M].
"Firstly, you will notice that when you browse the group using Google
Groups, the tags don't show up"
so when browsing the groups you don't see tags... how would you know
which one was used?
"Threads that ought to be tagged (i.e. all of them on afp) therefore
end up not being tagged because of some Google Groups user who was
either ignorant or suffered a lapse of attention, and the whole
tagging system (considered useful by many people) starts to fall down
like a row of dominoes."
or someone decided not to use a tag, i.e. their choice.
Do we really need screenshots showing someone how to type in a 'tag' !!
"If the post to which you're replying really doesn't have a tag to
begin with, it may well be because another Google Groups user
inadvertantly removed it further up the thread (that's the problem -
the tag-stealing bug affects not only your post, but all the other
posts that come after it). The most helpful thing you can do in that
situation is to work out what the tag ought to be and put it back in."
or someone else decided not to use a tag.
"The following advice tells you what to do when you no longer wish to
put up with Google Groups."
I'd argue that that isn't necessary.
"Here's a description with a slightly different emphasis including
brief summaries of several newsreaders."
not sure I agree with that wording, but wouldn't it be better to scrap
the rest of the page and ask it to be added to the page you link to?
" news.individual.net "
Ok I know they have been useful in the past, but they are no longer
free. I am sure there are other equally deserving news servers out there.
well you did ask for comments...
elfin
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26235 ] |
Mi, 27 April 2005 14:42 |
|
elfin wrote:
<snip>
I've made a couple of changes addressing two or three of the issues
that you raise, but I'll leave most of it alone until I've heard a
few more opinions.
> "The following advice tells you what to do when you no longer wish to put up
> with Google Groups."
> I'd argue that that isn't necessary.
It invites the reader to pause, advises them of a change in theme
(which may mean that the remainder doesn't apply to them), and makes
the document less monolithic. Apart from that, no, it isn't necessary.
I've changed it slightly.
> "Here's a description with a slightly different emphasis including brief
> summaries of several newsreaders."
>
> not sure I agree with that wording, but wouldn't it be better to scrap the
> rest of the page and ask it to be added to the page you link to?
Scrap the rest of the page? In the future, perhaps. However,
subscribe.html would need to provide a little more detail on a couple
of points before I conceded that anything I've written is superfluous.
I posted a list of such points elsewhere.
I'm not at all convinced that coming from subscribe.htm is a sensible
direction in which to navigate to this document.
> " news.individual.net "
>
> Ok I know they have been useful in the past, but they are no longer free. I am
> sure there are other equally deserving news servers out there.
What has not being free got to do with anything?
Apart from lspace, which Leo advises against mentioning at the present
time, the only free public server I'm aware of is the one Sanity owns,
and he has requested that I don't explicitely mention it for now
either. Instead, I've said that "there are free news servers around,
and the good folk on alt.fan.pratchett may be able to help you find
one if you ask".
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26237 ] |
Mi, 27 April 2005 14:56 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> Advice for Google Groups users now available in html here:
>
> http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/afp/afpgooglefaq.htm
Step 1: Give up.
Step 2: Get a newsreader.
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): I am that merry wanderer of the night,
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26239 ] |
Mi, 27 April 2005 14:59 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> elfin wrote:
>>"Here's a description with a slightly different emphasis including brief
>>summaries of several newsreaders."
>>
>>not sure I agree with that wording, but wouldn't it be better to scrap the
>>rest of the page and ask it to be added to the page you link to?
>
>
> Scrap the rest of the page? In the future, perhaps. However,
> subscribe.html would need to provide a little more detail on a couple
> of points before I conceded that anything I've written is superfluous.
> I posted a list of such points elsewhere.
yep scrap. Otherwise information is being split into 2 separate areas
where one would be better.
> I'm not at all convinced that coming from subscribe.htm is a sensible
> direction in which to navigate to this document.
hmm, don't think I actually said this. But why should this one be a
specific link/page when we don't have one for the much maligned
Outlook Express ?
elfin
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26275 ] |
Mi, 27 April 2005 22:19 |
|
elfin <elfin [at] elfden.co.uk> wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> > Advice for Google Groups users now available in html here:
> >
> > http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/afp/afpgooglefaq.htm
>
> "In a nutshell: Google Groups has serious problems. If you understand
> those problems and how to negate them, you can be part of the solution."
>
> serious problems? not really, it has problems that affect afp. It has
> foibles, but so do most newsreaders.
No, it doesn't have foibles. It has serious problems that affect not
just AFP, but all of Usenet. In particular the fact that it makes it
very easy to post without quoting _is_ a serious problem, as problems on
Usenet go.
> "Google Groups is the cause of considerable recent disruption to
> alt.fan.pratchett's tagging system."
>
> I'm still not convinced, yes there has been a number of more untagged
> posts, but I haven't noticed it being that much of a problem myself,
I agree. Not _much_ more than it used to be, anyway. The lack of quoting
is a lot more aggravating.
> " news.individual.net "
>
> Ok I know they have been useful in the past, but they are no longer
> free. I am sure there are other equally deserving news servers out there.
Possibly, but news.individual.net are good, and cheap. Alternatives, I'm
sure, woudl be welcome, but I don't know of any.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26278 ] |
Mi, 27 April 2005 22:24 |
|
"Flesh-eating Dragon" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Advice for Google Groups users now available in html here:
>
> http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/afp/afpgooglefaq.htm
Nitpick: it might be a good idea to mention that it's the new Google
Groups Beta interface which is broken, not the old one, which is still
available at, for example, groups.google.co.uk and groups.google.ca.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26311 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 02:20 |
|
Richard Bos wrote:
> elfin wrote:
>> I'm still not convinced, yes there has been a number of more untagged
>> posts, but I haven't noticed it being that much of a problem myself,
>
> I agree. Not _much_ more than it used to be, anyway. The lack of quoting
> is a lot more aggravating.
The number of untagged posts is _dramatically_ more than it used to be.
I would guess a *conservative* estimate to be that 80% of untagged
posts are due to GG (including follow-ups to GG posts) and I expect
that the real figure is quite a bit more than that. I haven't checked,
of course, but I would be _very_ surprised to be wrong.
I find tag-stealing more irritating than lack of quoting, because lack
of quoting only affects the one post, whereas lack of tagging affects
the whole subsequent thread more often than not.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26316 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 03:10 |
|
elfin wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>> Scrap the rest of the page? In the future, perhaps. However,
>> subscribe.html would need to provide a little more detail on a couple
>> of points before I conceded that anything I've written is superfluous.
>> I posted a list of such points elsewhere.
>
> yep scrap. Otherwise information is being split into 2 separate areas where
> one would be better.
To repeat myself: not until we agree on what that one page should
contain.
>> I'm not at all convinced that coming from subscribe.htm is a sensible
>> direction in which to navigate to this document.
>
> hmm, don't think I actually said this.
You said that the link should be from subscribe.htm, which can only
mean that you think such a link would be useful. I don't.
> But why should this one be a specific link/page when we don't have one for the
> much maligned Outlook Express ?
OE's problems don't cause anywhere near as much disruption as GG's
problems do.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26317 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 03:12 |
|
Richard Bos wrote:
> Nitpick: it might be a good idea to mention that it's the new Google
> Groups Beta interface which is broken, not the old one, which is still
> available at, for example, groups.google.co.uk and groups.google.ca.
I've added a hyperlink to Google Groups Beta, so that it's doubly
clear which website I'm talking about. Does this help?
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26332 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 10:35 |
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:50:51 +0930, "Flesh-eating Dragon"
<dragon [at] netyp.com.au> jotted down:
>I find tag-stealing more irritating than lack of quoting, because lack
>of quoting only affects the one post, whereas lack of tagging affects
>the whole subsequent thread more often than not.
I'd say it's the combination. I thread by subject, when a
thread changes subject, it becomes a new thread [1]. So when
a google groups post shows up with it's tag stripped and no
quoting, I get it as a contextless new thread. I'm guessing
that this is what's happening to a lot of other people as
well.
If it only didn't quote, you'd still be able to get context
from the post above it in the thread. If it only didn't tag
you'd still be able to get context from the quoted bit of
the message.
[1] I tried it the other way for a while, but didn't like
it.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26336 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 11:21 |
|
Graycat wrote:
> If it only didn't quote, you'd still be able to get context
> from the post above it in the thread. If it only didn't tag
> you'd still be able to get context from the quoted bit of
> the message.
But at least, with no quoting, you can deal with it by ignoring that
particular post. If one individual doesn't learn to quote properly,
fine, ignore that individual until they do. Lack of quoting is not
contagious - it doesn't affect any other posts downthread.
Removal of tags, however, *is* contagious. You start out with a
perfectly ordinary thread:
[I] This is a thread
Re: [I] This is a thread
and then GG removes the tag
Re: This is a thread
and then someone puts it back but gets it *wrong*, dammit:
Re:[I] This is a thread
Re: Re:[I] This is a thread
and now the thread is all fractured into little bits with at least
three slightly different names.
I find this extremely ugly and irritating, in much the same way that
graffiti is irritating.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26340 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 13:55 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> elfin wrote:
>> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>
>>> Scrap the rest of the page? In the future, perhaps. However,
>>> subscribe.html would need to provide a little more detail on a
>>> couple of points before I conceded that anything I've written is
>>> superfluous. I posted a list of such points elsewhere.
>>
>> yep scrap. Otherwise information is being split into 2 separate
>> areas where one would be better.
>
> To repeat myself: not until we agree on what that one page should
> contain.
In that case, scrap what's in dispute.
A difficult part of the art of creativity is to know what to cut, especially
if it's your favourite parts. Kill your babies, as they say in the movie
industry.
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26341 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 14:10 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26343 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 15:02 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>> elfin wrote:
>>> yep scrap. Otherwise information is being split into 2 separate
>>> areas where one would be better.
>>
>> To repeat myself: not until we agree on what that one page should
>> contain.
>
> In that case, scrap what's in dispute.
> A difficult part of the art of creativity is to know what to cut, especially
> if it's your favourite parts. Kill your babies, as they say in the movie
> industry.
I don't have "favourite bits". It's not a creative exercise. I have
opinions about what information is important to supply.
Here is one of my opinions. A document that summarises how to choose a
news server *MUST* warn people that their ISP's native news server may
be a total disaster. People must be forewarned that perhaps many posts
will never show up, and that propogation of their own posts elsewhere
might be a long way from dependable. There are many downright dreadful
news servers out there (because demand for them isn't that high) and I
think it would be quite impolite not to mention this. The advice
should be: give your ISP's news server a go, but if it turns out to be
rubbish, don't be surprised, however there's no harm done and you can
find another server.
Here's another. A document written for afpers that summarises how to
choose a news server and reader should advise that people can ask for
help if they need it. This includes:
* Finding a free news server (e.g. Sanity has one to offer).
* Asking which news readers meet a specific need/wish.
* Getting started with a news reader.
* Other questions.
Thirdly, a document listing examples of news readers should link to
the websites of those readers. The link should definitely be to the
index page of the product description and *not* to the download page.
It is important to encourage people to research a product and compare
it with alternatives before downloading it.
(Incidentally, subscribe.html doesn't mention Xnews at all.)
If <http://www.lspace.org/fandom/subscribe.html> is updated with these
points in mind (which I've listed roughly from most to least
important), then I will snip some of the material in
<http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/afp/afpgooglefaq.htm>. However,
as long as I feel that the former is inadequate, I feel obliged to
provide my own paraphrase.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26344 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 11:48 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon posted:
> Richard Bos wrote:
>> elfin wrote:
>
>>> I'm still not convinced, yes there has been a number of
>>> more untagged posts, but I haven't noticed it being that
>>> much of a problem myself,
>>
>> I agree. Not _much_ more than it used to be, anyway. The
>> lack of quoting is a lot more aggravating.
>
> The number of untagged posts is _dramatically_ more than it
> used to be. I would guess a *conservative* estimate to be
> that 80% of untagged posts are due to GG (including
> follow-ups to GG posts) and I expect that the real figure
> is quite a bit more than that. I haven't checked, of
> course, but I would be _very_ surprised to be wrong.
>
> I find tag-stealing more irritating than lack of quoting,
> because lack of quoting only affects the one post, whereas
> lack of tagging affects the whole subsequent thread more
> often than not.
>
Add to that the thread breaking ...
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<sometimes RL is such a drag>
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26366 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 22:21 |
|
Jennifer Barber <spam [at] eljen.net> wrote:
>In article <426ff3f5.14500359 [at] news.xs4all.nl>,
> rlb [at] hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>
>> Nitpick: it might be a good idea to mention that it's the new Google
>> Groups Beta interface which is broken, not the old one, which is still
>> available at, for example, groups.google.co.uk and groups.google.ca.
>
>Oh! Oh! Is that true for the archives as well?
Thankfully, yes. Although alternative Googles can (temporarily) break too,
so if one does that, don't give up but try another one.
How nice, another old name coming out of the woodwork. Welcome back!
--
Kimberley Verburg
kim [at] lspace.org
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26370 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 22:54 |
|
Jennifer Barber <spam [at] eljen.net> wrote:
> In article <426ff3f5.14500359 [at] news.xs4all.nl>,
> rlb [at] hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>
> > Nitpick: it might be a good idea to mention that it's the new Google
> > Groups Beta interface which is broken, not the old one, which is still
> > available at, for example, groups.google.co.uk and groups.google.ca.
>
> Oh! Oh! Is that true for the archives as well? I was trying to find
> something the other day and discovered it had gone completely unusable.
Ah. This I don't know. I don't use it often enough to notice; all posts
I've tried to find have been there.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26371 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 22:51 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>>> elfin wrote:
>
>>>> yep scrap. Otherwise information is being split into 2 separate
>>>> areas where one would be better.
>>>
>>> To repeat myself: not until we agree on what that one page should
>>> contain.
>>
>> In that case, scrap what's in dispute.
>> A difficult part of the art of creativity is to know what to cut,
>> especially if it's your favourite parts. Kill your babies, as they
>> say in the movie industry.
>
> I don't have "favourite bits".
.... he said, and then he went on to describe one of his favourite bits.
> It's not a creative exercise. I have
> opinions about what information is important to supply.
>
> Here is one of my opinions. A document that summarises how to choose a
> news server *MUST* warn people that their ISP's native news server may
> be a total disaster.
Why? *Why* is that *more important* than any other information?
In my opinion, it's a prime candidate for snipping, not the least because
it's wildly inaccurate and makes assumptions that might not be true.
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26374 ] |
Do, 28 April 2005 23:57 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26375 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 00:04 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26383 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 02:50 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
>Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>> I don't have "favourite bits".
>
> ... he said, and then he went on to describe one of his favourite bits.
Maybe you use a different definition of "favourite" to everyone else.
>> Here is one of my opinions. A document that summarises how to choose a
>> news server *MUST* warn people that their ISP's native news server may
>> be a total disaster.
>
> Why? *Why* is that *more important* than any other information?
>
> In my opinion, it's a prime candidate for snipping, not the least because
> it's wildly inaccurate and makes assumptions that might not be true.
How is it wildly inaccurate? It is absolutely accurate and makes no
assumptions. And the reason it's important is because it's verging on
the bloody rude not to forewarn people that badly configured news
servers exist in abundance.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26408 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 16:49 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>
>>> I don't have "favourite bits".
>>
>> ... he said, and then he went on to describe one of his favourite
>> bits.
>
> Maybe you use a different definition of "favourite" to everyone else.
For values of "everyone else" matching /you/?
>>> Here is one of my opinions. A document that summarises how to
>>> choose a news server *MUST* warn people that their ISP's native
>>> news server may be a total disaster.
>>
>> Why? *Why* is that *more important* than any other information?
>>
>> In my opinion, it's a prime candidate for snipping, not the least
>> because it's wildly inaccurate and makes assumptions that might not
>> be true.
>
> How is it wildly inaccurate? It is absolutely accurate and makes no
> assumptions.
It's inaccurate because unless you can give a definite and repeatable (by a
newbie, no less) procedure for establishing whether a news server "is a
total disaster" or not, it's all insubstantited guesswork.
It makes the assumption that the ISP has a news server and that the user
uses that. Several of the largest ISPs in the US don't *have* a news
server, and instead send their customers to a commercial usenet provider,
which they pay for. Sometimes without the customer even *knowing*. Others
may be using news-to-web or news-to-mail gateways. Or, heck, even UUCP
(which my ISP offers), or a suck.
But most of all, it's just plain bullshit because people have different
ideas of what makes a news server suck (npi) or not. On a spool, I wouldn't
allow less than a year's retention of big eight text postings, <100 ms post
retrieval time, and failover to a news spool running with a different core
engine. On a feed, I would be happy with a fast feed with retention just
big enough to send me the articles, and a secondary slower feed for
fill-ins.
Others would say a news server sucks (or is that SUX0r5) if it expires parts
to their porn movies before they get to download them all, or if they can't
connect to it with more than 4 threads at a time.
Yet others might think it sucks if it isn't available when travelling, or if
it rewrites already present headers.
There's even people who think it sucks because of things we can never think
about!
It's all subjective, and can't be measured objectively. What's good for
you, might be bad for someone else, and what others find sucky, you might
find perfectly acceptable. And there's no way to explain this without
writing a book, for which you are uniquely unqualified.
> And the reason it's important is because it's verging on
> the bloody rude not to forewarn people that badly configured news
> servers exist in abundance.
Then it's verging on bloody rude not to inform them of a whole lot of other
things too. There's nothing about news server "suckiness" that makes it
more important to inform about than, say, using a fast-switching surge
protector, or avoiding prolonged use of high contrast colours.
IMNSHO, it's one of your babies, and it's time to kill it.
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26410 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 19:18 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>> Maybe you use a different definition of "favourite" to everyone else.
>
> For values of "everyone else" matching /you/?
What's the name of the language I speak again? <checks> English, yeah,
that's it.
'Favourite' and 'necessary' are two different things. Suppose I ate a
meal at a restaurant. My favourite part might be the dessert, but a
more necessary part might be paying the bill. The most necessary part
is (in that case) unlikely to be my favourite, and vice versa.
> It's inaccurate because unless you can give a definite and repeatable (by a
> newbie, no less) procedure for establishing whether a news server "is a
> total disaster" or not, it's all insubstantited guesswork.
Not so. If there is a problem, a user *will* notice.
For example, the very first time I ever started a thread in
alt.fan.pratchett (early in 1997), the post was replied to by Tamar,
but Tamar's post never showed up on the news server I was using at the
time. However, replies to *Tamar's* post /did/ show up, so I knew that
there were posts that weren't showing up.
(This sort of thing happened frequently, and that was a *good* news
server compared to others I could name.)
If things like that happen on a recurring basis, then it's a fair
hypothesis that your news server is not reliably fetching messages.
This is not rocket science, nor is it beyond the intellect of an
average newbie.
A user who is accustomed to Google Groups has an additional advantage.
If messages often show up on Google Groups that don't show up locally,
that can be taken as a sort of a hint.
> But most of all, it's just plain bullshit because people have different
> ideas of what makes a news server suck (npi) or not.
The only definition that matters is that a server sucks iff it cannot
be used for the purpose intended for it. Its purpose is to be a tool
for communication, for which reasonable reliability of propagation is
paramount. No two ways about it.
People have different ideas of what makes a table suck or not. Shape,
colour, size, etc. But if it doesn't have a flat, horizontal surface
then it's obviously a no-goer.
> It's all subjective, and can't be measured objectively. What's good for
> you, might be bad for someone else, and what others find sucky, you might
> find perfectly acceptable. And there's no way to explain this without
> writing a book, for which you are uniquely unqualified.
Really? No-one else in the world is unqualified in quite the same way
I am? Want to explain that?
>> And the reason it's important is because it's verging on
>> the bloody rude not to forewarn people that badly configured news
>> servers exist in abundance.
>
> Then it's verging on bloody rude not to inform them of a whole lot of other
> things too. There's nothing about news server "suckiness" that makes it
> more important to inform about than, say, using a fast-switching surge
> protector, or avoiding prolonged use of high contrast colours.
Nonsense. The context here is that we're recommending people on
choosing a news server. If you make such a recommendation, then IMO
you are obliged to say, "Mind you, a lot of them aren't very good, but
it's worth a try". If you were recommending surge protectors then
you'd talk about surge protectors.
You wouldn't recommend a hike in the Australian bush and not mention
drop bears, would you? (Actually, I would, but that's because they're
fictional. Nevertheless, similar principle.)
> IMNSHO, it's one of your babies, and it's time to kill it.
Abbreviating it is an option (in fact I have just done so) but I'll
kill it when you convince Susan not to introduce children to the
occult.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26420 ] |
Fr, 29 April 2005 21:18 |
|
On 28 Apr 2005, "Flesh-eating Dragon" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au>
wrote
<hack>
>(Incidentally, subscribe.html doesn't mention Xnews at all.)
It doesn't mention dozens of other news readers either. Quite
specifically. Because, if you do down the route of trying to cover
all of the newsreaders out here, you'll never finish. What it
*does* try to do is offer suggestions and it covers *some* of the
better known clients to try and give people a decent starting
point.
No more. No less.
I wouldn't describe Xnews as particularly easy to use or setup if
you're new to news clients in general or if you're not especially
technically orientated. I'd personally class it as slightly more
intimidating than Gravity - which is mentioned but with a warning.
>If <http://www.lspace.org/fandom/subscribe.html> is updated
>with these points in mind (which I've listed roughly from most
>to least important), then I will snip some of the material in
><http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/afp/afpgooglefaq.htm>.
><However,
>as long as I feel that the former is inadequate, I feel
>obliged to provide my own paraphrase.
I am more than happy to include information on using Google Groups
'cluefully' within afp but I feel there is a limit to the amount
of detail required.
If you wish to continue maintaining your own AFP Google Groups
Guide, I'm also happy to provide a link directly to it from within
subscribe.html but I wouldn't, in all honesty, be able to link to
it as a FAQ but as 'Suggested Further Reading for Google groups
Users'.
--
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26434 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 03:00 |
|
esmi wrote:
> I wouldn't describe Xnews as particularly easy to use or setup if
> you're new to news clients in general or if you're not especially
> technically orientated. I'd personally class it as slightly more
> intimidating than Gravity - which is mentioned but with a warning.
I wouldn't know, of course, having not tried it, but it's evident that
some people on afp do recommend it as suitable for newbies. I imagine
that the two primary reasons to list a given reader would be that it's
free and that there are people on afp who recommend it (exception for
OE due to sheer availability).
Not important, which is why the question was in parentheses.
> If you wish to continue maintaining your own AFP Google Groups
> Guide, I'm also happy to provide a link directly to it from within
> subscribe.html but I wouldn't, in all honesty, be able to link to
I would rather give it at least a few weeks to mature, and until then
let links be from newsgroup posts and not from websites.
I still think it's utterly and completely useless to provide a link
from subscribe.html ... it won't do any *harm*, but only in the same
sense that it won't do any harm to drop a newspaper down a fox hole.
*Nobody* who needs to read afpgooglefaq.htm will find the link in
subscribe.html, barring total and absolute flukes. Such a link would
contravene the common-sense principle that you link to page B from
page A if the information on page B is useful or interesting to a
subset of the intended readership of page A. Why bother?
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26435 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 03:03 |
|
I wrote:
<snip>
It seems that I accidentally snipped the last bit of my last post
during the process of composition.
The missing part isn't much, but for the record, esme wrote:
> subscribe.html but I wouldn't, in all honesty, be able to link to it as a FAQ
> but as 'Suggested Further Reading for Google groups Users'.
and I queried, "what's in a name?"
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26450 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 10:59 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> I still think it's utterly and completely useless to provide
> a link from subscribe.html ... it won't do any *harm*, but
> only in the same sense that it won't do any harm to drop a
> newspaper down a fox hole.
>
> *Nobody* who needs to read afpgooglefaq.htm will find the
> link in subscribe.html, barring total and absolute flukes.
Maybe not "nobody", but generally I agree. I guess many (or
maybe even nearly all) google groups users will find afp by
searching google groups for "Discworld", not by going through
l-space.
~Anke
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26477 ] |
Sa, 30 April 2005 16:55 |
|
Flesh-eating Dragon dragon [at] netyp.com.au wrote in
<d4ukkl$2h2$1 [at] groundhog.korenwolf.net>:
> esmi wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't describe Xnews as particularly easy to use or setup if
> > you're new to news clients in general or if you're not especially
> > technically orientated. I'd personally class it as slightly more
> > intimidating than Gravity - which is mentioned but with a warning.
>
> I wouldn't know, of course, having not tried it, but it's evident that
> some people on afp do recommend it as suitable for newbies. I imagine
> that the two primary reasons to list a given reader would be that it's
> free and that there are people on afp who recommend it (exception for
> OE due to sheer availability).
>
It IS suitable for newbies. The fact that it can be configured in all
sorts of interesting ways is entirely irrelevant, you don't need to use
all that stuff, it works well with the default settings and the things
that are needed all the time are fairly intuitive and obvious. So long as
you don't feel you need to understand absolutely every single item in
every single menu before you start it's as easy to set up and use as
pretty much any other newsreader.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26497 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 01:20 |
|
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:
> Flesh-eating Dragon <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> > Here is one of my opinions. A document that summarises how to choose a
> > news server *MUST* warn people that their ISP's native news server may
> > be a total disaster.
>
> Why? *Why* is that *more important* than any other information?
Imprimis, Adrian never said that it was more important than _any_ other
information, just that it was important.
> In my opinion, it's a prime candidate for snipping, not the least because
> it's wildly inaccurate and makes assumptions that might not be true.
Secundis, IMO, it's not inaccurate at all: some ISP's news servers are
good, but some other ISPs couldn't run a news server if it came pre-run,
pre-newsed, and pre-servered. And some ISPs, AFAICT, don't provide a
news server at all.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [M] FAQ for Google Groups users - HTML version now online [message #26498 ] |
So, 01 Mai 2005 01:20 |
|
Jennifer Barber <spam [at] eljen.net> wrote:
> In article <42714cba.9628703 [at] news.xs4all.nl>,
> rlb [at] hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>
> > Jennifer Barber <spam [at] eljen.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh! Oh! Is that true for the archives as well? I was trying to find
> > > something the other day and discovered it had gone completely unusable.
> >
> > Ah. This I don't know. I don't use it often enough to notice; all posts
> > I've tried to find have been there.
>
> I checked it out at lunch, and was thrilled to see it was once again as
> useful as it ever was. Still clunky, but not nearly as bad as the new
> interface.
>
> The sad thing is, this was truly the highlight of my week.
Well, glad to be the bringer of good news, but if that's the best you've
had, I do hope next week will be better.
Richard
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 06:12:45 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,15353 Sekunden |
