|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [FAQ] {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works
| [FAQ] {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287541] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 06:00 |
|
Archive-name: pratchett/subject-tag-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly (on Wednesday)
Last-modified: 27 May 2006
URL: <http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
This and all the other FAQs for Pratchett newsgroups and things
Pratchett related may be found at:
<http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
Additionally, if you are unable to find the answer to your query in the
relevant FAQ, or have a more general query or request, there is a Help
Facility to be reached by mailing:
<afp-help [at] lspace.org>
General advice on subscribing to and reading afp using a proper
newsreader or Google Groups can be found here:
<http://www.lspace.org/fandom/subscribe.html>
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
* Alphabetti Spaghetti *
AFP's [X] subject tags for threads - how and when to use them. You may
find it useful to keep a copy of this handy for a while.
Alt.fan.pratchett can be a fairly heavy-traffic newsgroup. In addition,
afp'ers tolerate off topic posts and don't restrict their contributions
to matters strictly to do with Terry Pratchett, and his writings.
The tags make it easier to sort the large numbers of posts. You can
visually sort the threads into the main categories of interest and avoid
those of least interest. It also enables automatic selection, sorting or
kill-filing, for those with newsreaders with a kill-file facility [1].
NB if you are forced to post through Google Groups be warned that it
strips out the tags and the quoted content of the last post. You will
need to return both to your reply manually :-( When adding a tag, if
you eliminate the space between the tag and the subject line it should
be preserved, even on Google. (using the Google 'options' to display as
tree, show original etc may help you.)
Feedback to Google to point out how unhelpful this is to usenet groups
may eventually convince them to return to something more suitable to
newsgroups who use a tagging convention.
The following guidelines should help you but if all else fails please
remember the zeroth law of tagging. It doesn't merit outraged nitpicking
reactions to untagged or wrongly tagged articles - a courteous
explanation or reminder is ample. Our articles are in practice more
likely to be read if tagged correctly but its not a hanging offence to
make a simple mistake and shouldn't be treated like one :-
0) Tagging was devised to serve afp and afpers. Not the other way round.
1) Please add tags when starting a thread, or when following up to a
thread where a tag has been lost. The tag is most useful at the
beginning of the subject so that it can aid sorting.
2) Please change the tag, as the subject matter changes eg from [R] to
{I} [remove the old tag completely, or else "deactivate" it by changing
the square brackets to some other symbol, e.g. This FAQ has square
brackets around the actual tag which is [FAQ] and curly brackets are
used to "deactivate" the other tags.
3) One is enough! Multiple tagging can generally be avoided by reading
the definitions below, if in doubt feel free to ask.
4) Please *don't* introduce use of new tags. Such proposals should be
discussed on group first. Many new tags have been suggested before -
try looking on google groups before suggesting new tags, its a
regular subject :-} Similarly please stick to the "[X]" format.
5) NB for those who are new to afp but are familiar with tagging, the
[Q] tag for questions is not in use on these groups.
Currently recognised tags are:
[A] - Annotation - articles commenting upon, or explaining
references in Terry Pratchett's novels and shorter stories. Leo
Breebaart (leo [at] lspace.org), and his able assistant Mike Kew
(MiQ [at] lspace.org) use [A] tagged articles to help them select
additions to the awesome Annotated Pratchett File which may be
obtained from <http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/> Please check the
APF before submitting new annotations.
[R] - Relevant - articles (other than annotations) that are directly
related to and are discussing Terry's works, publications,
theatrical productions, films, websites, and other activities
based upon them, including the companion maps, art & craftwork,
inasmuch as they relate to the original works and each other.
[I] - Irrelevant - threads whose subjects are not directly related to
Terry's works, publications or other "spin-offs" nor to afp fan
activity, nor to afp-the-newsgroup. Please bear in mind that [I]
is not intended as a licence to repeatedly introduce contentious
or other subjects for their own sake - consider whether the
subject has already been aired recently and is still of wider
interest.
[M] - Meta - These are for the discussion of issues relating to afp
itself and how it operates. Please look at them when they arise -
this is your group. They are the forum for discussing changes to
the way your usenet community operates (eg how tagging is used,
FAQ issues etc), as well as activity on the newsgroup and matters
generally within the group itself which may be of concern/interest
to subscribers. Fresh eyes often make particularly valuable
contributions to these discussions.
[F] - Fan - details of afp fan activity, normally "in real life" (or
as close as afpers get to the same), frequently involving
hostelries and other establishments serving alcoholic beverages
and/or curries...Also, reports on such activities, links for
pictures etc, proposals for repeat events and other activities,
information about fandom services, resources etc.
[C] - Cascade - content-free, "articles" deliberately building up a
"cascade", or visual effect. Please remember the negative effect
of cascades upon afp as well as bandwidth wasted, before starting
another cascade and at the least, retag it and trim quotation to
the references, plus the cascade itself. Where a cascade arises
from another thread please retag it promptly.
[G] - Game - articles about the discworld computer games and, by
extension, about earlier discworld games, and those as-yet
unwritten whether board-, computer-, jigsaw- or fantasy role-
playing- games...TCoM is on www.lspace.org.
[ANNOUNCE] - an article cross-posted from alt.fan.pratchett.announce,
and also cross-posted to alt.books.pratchett; plus followups.
This may be [F], [G], [M] - or even [R]. [to make an announcement
to afpa send it to the moderator afpa-mod [at] lspace.org. Submissions
should be sent in with clear subjectlines, repeating all important
information from subjectlines in the main body of the text. There
is a FAQ for submissions to afpa which you may find useful.]
For meet related activities it is also a good idea to mail the
relevant meet mail list with copies of announcements and the
additional details for speedier spreading of information. See:
<http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/meets/index.html>
[FAQ] - an article of fundamental importance to the way a newsgroup
works - from Frequently Asked Questions. These should be
considered the supporting documents of the afp community and are
. periodically posted to afp; available at
<http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
Guidelines specific to Alt.books.pratchett:
Please read the "ABP Posting Guidelines" for detailed information
specific to ABP. These comments relate to the use of tagging
specifically. This is now posted regularly to ABP as a FAQ.
All posts should be relevant to the works of Terry Pratchett so the [R]
and [I] tags are effectively redundant on posts specific to ABP. [R] is
obviously still needed for posts crossed to AFP, [I] cross-posts from/to
AFP would inevitably be off topic for ABP and so should not be made. The
tag most commonly in use on ABP is the [A] tag, which distinguishes
annotations from other relevant posts.
Where threads become [I] they may be crossed to AFP to continue the [I]
discussion on that group *if* the thread is likely to be of interest to
the readers of AFP (of which you may well be one) - please remember to
change/add the tag and set followups to AFP. Elsewise let it die out or
cross to a more appropriate group instead. Or of course there is always
"follow-up to poster"...
Finally, speculation about future developments is now acceptable on ABP.
BUT please remember to include a subheader [SPECULATION] inside the post
just above the speculative section. This is not a "tag" as such and does
not need to be added to the heading unless the entire post is
[SPECULATION]. Currently speculation is considered unacceptable on AFP -
please remember this if cross posting threads there - add the [R] and
excise the [SPECULATION]. There is also now a 'speculation mail list'
available.
General comments:
If you are new to usenet and everything seems strange, and hard to
follow, lurking a while, reading threads as they develop, and also
reading the other FAQ's (such as the short "Welcome FAQ's") should
help. The main newsgroup FAQ, the afp-faq, maintained by Orin Thomas, is
a useful reference whilst lurking and subsequently.
Then when posting - think about last week's posts. Which do you actually
remember? Which do *you* wish you had written? Which of your own posts
will you be pleased to see in the *public archives* in years to come?
And remember - you are never obliged to follow up a post.
Thanks to Julie Ellis for tidying up the FAQ formatting for me :)
[1] - afp-help can probably answer questions on how to killfile
using most of the popular offline newsreaders in use - but please
check the documentation first, then ask of your 'net software's
publisher, or your isp's help/support desk (or line), if they were
the provider: they are more likely to have the detailed answers
already. This link may also help:
<http://www.lspace.org/fandom/subscribe.html>
--
Karen [at] lspace.org
|
|
|
| [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287656 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 17:49 |
|
Karen wrote:
> Archive-name: pratchett/subject-tag-faq
> Posting-Frequency: weekly (on Wednesday)
> Last-modified: 27 May 2006
> URL: <http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
This is a proposal to amend a section of this FAQ to reflect recent
suggestions on the group. (Crosspost to afpa and abp removed)
Current text is as follows:
> [C] - Cascade - content-free, "articles" deliberately building up a
> "cascade", or visual effect. Please remember the negative effect
> of cascades upon afp as well as bandwidth wasted, before starting
> another cascade and at the least, retag it and trim quotation to
> the references, plus the cascade itself. Where a cascade arises
> from another thread please retag it promptly.
It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups". The current text should be
amended to make this clear, and rephrased to reflect that the tag should
not be used only to indicate content-free articles (which is rather
derogatory), or visual effects.
It's time to let this black sheep in the tag family return to the fold,
and instead of being shunned and derided, let it take its rightful place
and stand straight, knowing it's loved by many. Let it harbour the
chatty threads, the banter, the flirting and the serial punning. Let us
all see it, not as the pariah of the tags, but the guardian of the quick
wit and friendly playfulness so many of us enjoy! Come, join me,
brothers and sisters, and rejoice, for no longer will we accept that one
of our tags is treated as something shameful. It's time to let the
Cascade come out of the closet in which we have hidden it for far too
long, and let it shine on us all with its wit and affection!
Erm... If you think it's okay?
Proposed wording:
[C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation like
this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
does not disrupt the original discussion.
Discuss.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287660 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 18:03 |
|
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:49:24 +0100, "Orjan Westin"
<nospam [at] cunobaros.com> jotted down:
>Karen wrote:
>> Archive-name: pratchett/subject-tag-faq
>> Posting-Frequency: weekly (on Wednesday)
>> Last-modified: 27 May 2006
>> URL: <http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
>
>This is a proposal to amend a section of this FAQ to reflect recent
>suggestions on the group. (Crosspost to afpa and abp removed)
>Proposed wording:
> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation like
> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
> does not disrupt the original discussion.
>
I think this looks excellent.
--
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] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287682 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 18:34 |
|
"Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote in message
news:4fapg8F1i7j0uU1 [at] individual.net...
> Karen wrote:
>> Archive-name: pratchett/subject-tag-faq
>> Posting-Frequency: weekly (on Wednesday)
>> Last-modified: 27 May 2006
>> URL: <http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
>
> This is a proposal to amend a section of this FAQ to reflect recent
> suggestions on the group. (Crosspost to afpa and abp removed)
>
<snip>
>
> Proposed wording:
> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation
> like
> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
> does not disrupt the original discussion.
>
Alternates?
added 2 's' for readibility
[C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
Usually, each post adds just a few lines to the previous, and
the
conversation tends to follow a "theme", like puns on flower
names
or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation
like
this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
does not disrupt the original discussion.
or
minor tweaking
[C] - Cascade - "conversations" of short posts, of puns or banter.
Usually with each post adding just a few lines to the previous,
and the
conversations tending to follow a "theme", like puns on flower
names
or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation
like
this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
does not disrupt the original discussion.
To my mind yeah, just need to tweak for readability/sense possibly.
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - taggingand how it works [message #287700 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 19:47 |
|
cc'ed this reply to the maintainer to ensure that she sees it.
first note: you know I have never noticed that the subject of this FAQ
doesn't include {C}, or perhaps no longer contains it. That says
something for a start.
On 14/06/2006 16:49, Orjan Westin wrote:
> Karen wrote:
>> Archive-name: pratchett/subject-tag-faq
>> Posting-Frequency: weekly (on Wednesday)
>> Last-modified: 27 May 2006
>> URL: <http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
>
> This is a proposal to amend a section of this FAQ to reflect recent
> suggestions on the group. (Crosspost to afpa and abp removed)
>
> Current text is as follows:
>
>> [C] - Cascade - content-free, "articles" deliberately building up a
>> "cascade", or visual effect. Please remember the negative effect
>> of cascades upon afp as well as bandwidth wasted, before starting
>> another cascade and at the least, retag it and trim quotation to
>> the references, plus the cascade itself. Where a cascade arises
>> from another thread please retag it promptly.
>
> It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
> conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups".
It has?
> The current text should be
> amended to make this clear, and rephrased to reflect that the tag should
> not be used only to indicate content-free articles (which is rather
> derogatory), or visual effects.
good god why?
C - Cascades were/are a certain type of post, of which we perhaps
haven't seen in some time (of course googling for a [C] is rather
difficult, so have a look at a golden oldie:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.pratchett/msg/0b340f8 27042273b?hl=en&
One pun follow ups, is that not the same as our old OLF ? They are by
their nature [I] and only turn into a Cascade if it is then followed
up similarly which then develops into a cascade.
But to retag for a simple single pun is ridiculous(well to me),
especially as that in itself can lead off onto different tangents itself!
I don't see the benefit of what you are suggesting.
elfin
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287707 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 20:03 |
|
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:47:29 +0100, elfin
<elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>On 14/06/2006 16:49, Orjan Westin wrote:
>>
>> It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
>> conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups".
>
>It has?
Er, yes. By Orjan, which is why he's also started this discussion.
>I don't see the benefit of what you are suggesting.
I don't either. It feels like trying to shoehorn more [I] stuff under a
different tag.
--
Andy Brown
Around computers it is difficult to find the correct unit of time to
measure progress. Some cathedrals took a century to complete. Can you
imagine the grandeur and scope of a program that would take as long?
-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287724 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 20:29 |
|
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:03:37 +0000 (UTC), jester
<usenet [at] jester.nu> jotted down:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:47:29 +0100, elfin
><elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>On 14/06/2006 16:49, Orjan Westin wrote:
>>>
>>> It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
>>> conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups".
>>
>>It has?
>
>Er, yes. By Orjan, which is why he's also started this discussion.
Actually, I think it may have been me, in a way.
>>I don't see the benefit of what you are suggesting.
>
>I don't either. It feels like trying to shoehorn more [I] stuff under a
>different tag.
The point isn't for single OLFs to have a special tag, the
point is that you can tag a thread C when it develops into a
chatroom-like OLF conversation.
The reason being that a lot of people think these
posts/subthreads are chatter/fluff and distract from the
discussions the threads they start in used to be about. A
lot of other people think they are fun. So tagging them
would be a way to make it easier for those who don't enjoy
them to avoid them. Thus possibly (hopefully) cutting down
on the bitching.
--
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] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - taggingand how it works [message #287735 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 21:02 |
|
on 14/06/2006 17:34 Steve Rogers said the following:
> "Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote in message
>> Proposed wording:
>> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
>> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
>> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
>> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation
>> like
>> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
>> does not disrupt the original discussion.
I'm quite happy with this version.
> Alternates?
> added 2 's' for readibility
I did try - really, I did, but I couldn't spot your 2 's'.
<snip>
> or
>
> minor tweaking
<snip>
I actually think that last version was the poorest in terms of
readability. Sorry, Steve.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - taggingand how it works [message #287739 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 20:57 |
|
on 14/06/2006 18:47 elfin said the following:
> On 14/06/2006 16:49, Orjan Westin wrote:
>> It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
>> conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups".
> It has?
Yes. Oh - do keep up, dear.
>> The current text should be
>> amended to make this clear, and rephrased to reflect that the tag should
>> not be used only to indicate content-free articles (which is rather
>> derogatory), or visual effects.
> good god why?
Well, I'm not about to re-hash the entire thread but I believe Orjan,
Elin and myself all came to the same conclusion.
<snip>
> One pun follow ups, is that not the same as our old OLF ? They are by
> their nature [I] and only turn into a Cascade if it is then followed
> up similarly which then develops into a cascade.
The fact that the original cascades happened to create a particular
visual effect is neither here nor there. In essence the principle is the
same. Cascade followups depended entirely upon their predecessor. So do
the one line puns, the pillow fights, the IRC-like exchanges etc etc.
The [C] threads were the nominated 'playgrounds'[1] for the group where
people could be as silly as they liked and where content was most
definitely *not* king. It makes perfect sense to me to extend the tag's
usefulness to cover other similar activities.
> But to retag for a simple single pun is ridiculous(well to me),
> especially as that in itself can lead off onto different tangents itself!
Oh - don't be so pedantic! No one has suggested that a single pun has to
be re-tagged. It's the 'run' of puns that can extend to 6 or more posts
that are being suggested. The old cascades invariably used to start off
as [I] threads but, if people were aware, by the time a couple of people
were involved in batting OLFs back and forth, the idea was that some
kind soul would have re-tagged the thread.
That's all that is being suggested now. Not wholesale facism.
> I don't see the benefit of what you are suggesting.
A way of having your fluff and eating^Wenjoying it.
esmi
[1] In the most non-derogatory sense of the word possible.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287763 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 22:41 |
|
"Graycat" <rosen.elin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45l092h104fq097aq158scnlnfkm81mpfd [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:03:37 +0000 (UTC), jester
> <usenet [at] jester.nu> jotted down:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:47:29 +0100, elfin
>><elfin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>On 14/06/2006 16:49, Orjan Westin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
>>>> conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups".
>>>
>>>It has?
>>
>>Er, yes. By Orjan, which is why he's also started this discussion.
>
> Actually, I think it may have been me, in a way.
>
>>>I don't see the benefit of what you are suggesting.
>>
>>I don't either. It feels like trying to shoehorn more [I] stuff under a
>>different tag.
>
> The point isn't for single OLFs to have a special tag, the
> point is that you can tag a thread C when it develops into a
> chatroom-like OLF conversation.
>
> The reason being that a lot of people think these
> posts/subthreads are chatter/fluff and distract from the
> discussions the threads they start in used to be about. A
> lot of other people think they are fun. So tagging them
> would be a way to make it easier for those who don't enjoy
> them to avoid them. Thus possibly (hopefully) cutting down
> on the bitching.
Surely the solution is for chat-room-type stuff to be held in a chat room or
IRC (my daughter uses MSN) or something that is immeasurably more
instantaneous than the bog standard newsgroup. I do enjoy a chat room and
think that snappy one-liners and fluffy stuff is more fitted to this medium.
When it comes to newsgroups, however, because it's recorded for posterity
and because of lengthier response times, I tend to expect less of the
lighter banter.
In IRC, I fluff and quip on a whim. In a newsgroup, I take more time and
care to give my messages interesting content. I always try to imagine just
how interesting my funny about a goat might seem to a stranger browsing afp.
i.e. not at all. And that's one reason why I very rarely post these days. I
doubt the staying power of most of my contributions.
May I just add, I would not recommend anyone to do a trawl of google for
their own first posts. It's very embarrasing.
I will be intrigued to see the outcome of Orjan's proposition. I want to
give it fair consideration despite me prefering to keep the status quo
throughout almost all previous attempts to enhance the tags. Maybe it *is*
time for change.
Or maybe I now qualify as an old fart. Ghod forbid.
- MEG
Time to get a new fence
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287766 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 22:44 |
|
In article <HJ6dnVLygcwe6Q3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d [at] bt.com>,
nospam_MEG_news [at] djelibeybi.idps.co.uk says...
> Surely the solution is for chat-room-type stuff to be held in a chat room or
> IRC (my daughter uses MSN) or something that is immeasurably more
> instantaneous than the bog standard newsgroup. I do enjoy a chat room and
> think that snappy one-liners and fluffy stuff is more fitted to this medium.
> When it comes to newsgroups, however, because it's recorded for posterity
> and because of lengthier response times, I tend to expect less of the
> lighter banter.
Suche media are far too fast for my usual rather plodding style and
rotten typing. I've tried IRC and it really was not my style at all - I
felt intensely pressured when I wanted to relax.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - taggingand how it works [message #287768 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 22:49 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
>
> It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
> conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups". The current text should be
> amended to make this clear, and rephrased to reflect that the tag should
> not be used only to indicate content-free articles (which is rather
> derogatory), or visual effects.
>
> It's time to let this black sheep in the tag family return to the fold,
> and instead of being shunned and derided, let it take its rightful place
> and stand straight, knowing it's loved by many. Let it harbour the
> chatty threads, the banter, the flirting and the serial punning. Let us
> all see it, not as the pariah of the tags, but the guardian of the quick
> wit and friendly playfulness so many of us enjoy! Come, join me,
> brothers and sisters, and rejoice, for no longer will we accept that one
> of our tags is treated as something shameful. It's time to let the
> Cascade come out of the closet in which we have hidden it for far too
> long, and let it shine on us all with its wit and affection!
>
> Erm... If you think it's okay?
>
> Proposed wording:
> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation like
> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
> does not disrupt the original discussion.
AYE!
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287779 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 23:01 |
|
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
> Karen wrote:
>> Archive-name: pratchett/subject-tag-faq
>> Posting-Frequency: weekly (on Wednesday)
>> Last-modified: 27 May 2006
>> URL: <http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
>
> This is a proposal to amend a section of this FAQ to reflect recent
> suggestions on the group. (Crosspost to afpa and abp removed)
>
> Current text is as follows:
>
>> [C] - Cascade - content-free, "articles" deliberately building up a
>> "cascade", or visual effect. Please remember the negative effect
>> of cascades upon afp as well as bandwidth wasted, before
>> starting another cascade and at the least, retag it and trim
>> quotation to the references, plus the cascade itself. Where a
>> cascade arises from another thread please retag it promptly.
>
> It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
> conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups". The current text should be
> amended to make this clear, and rephrased to reflect that the tag
> should not be used only to indicate content-free articles (which is
> rather derogatory), or visual effects.
>
> It's time to let this black sheep in the tag family return to the
> fold, and instead of being shunned and derided, let it take its
> rightful place and stand straight, knowing it's loved by many. Let
> it harbour the chatty threads, the banter, the flirting and the
> serial punning. Let us all see it, not as the pariah of the tags,
> but the guardian of the quick wit and friendly playfulness so many of
> us enjoy! Come, join me, brothers and sisters, and rejoice, for no
> longer will we accept that one of our tags is treated as something
> shameful. It's time to let the Cascade come out of the closet in
> which we have hidden it for far too long, and let it shine on us all
> with its wit and affection!
> Erm... If you think it's okay?
>
> Proposed wording:
> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation
> like this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly,
> so it does not disrupt the original discussion.
>
> Discuss.
I agree with all of the above, but I object on reasons of technicality, as I
think tags in themselves are inherently evil, as I believe the subject
should reflect the content, not a single letter code embedded in the
subject.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287782 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 23:15 |
|
MEG wrote:
> "Graycat" <rosen.elin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45l092h104fq097aq158scnlnfkm81mpfd [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>> The point isn't for single OLFs to have a special tag, the
>> point is that you can tag a thread C when it develops into a
>> chatroom-like OLF conversation.
>>
>> The reason being that a lot of people think these
>> posts/subthreads are chatter/fluff and distract from the
>> discussions the threads they start in used to be about. A
>> lot of other people think they are fun. So tagging them
>> would be a way to make it easier for those who don't enjoy
>> them to avoid them. Thus possibly (hopefully) cutting down
>> on the bitching.
>
> Surely the solution is for chat-room-type stuff to be held in a chat
> room or IRC (my daughter uses MSN) or something that is immeasurably
> more instantaneous than the bog standard newsgroup.
Well, yes, but that is clearly an unpreferred option. I'm proposing a
sort of compromise.
> In IRC, I fluff and quip on a whim. In a newsgroup, I take more time
> and care to give my messages interesting content. I always try to
> imagine just how interesting my funny about a goat
ROFL!
> might seem to a
> stranger browsing afp. i.e. not at all. And that's one reason why I
> very rarely post these days. I doubt the staying power of most of my
> contributions.
> May I just add, I would not recommend anyone to do a trawl of google
> for their own first posts. It's very embarrasing.
I just did. A couple of reasoned, lecturing posts, a book
recommendation, some bad puns, and a mention of "Gods Expedition Hell",
from the first week.
Gah! I haven't changed at all!
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=oyM12BcAAAC XNTsJQoDY7pj0pt7YLCQ_uCunK5zDcvRsXUjxG8qpIw
> I will be intrigued to see the outcome of Orjan's proposition. I want
> to give it fair consideration despite me prefering to keep the status
> quo throughout almost all previous attempts to enhance the tags.
As esmi said, conceptually it's not changed, apart from allowing more
than a single line. But the perception of them can be changed, I think.
Cascades need not be shameful or something you have to avoid.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287799 ] |
Mi, 14 Juni 2006 23:32 |
|
The time: 14 Jun 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com>
> Proposed wording:
> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns
> or banter.
> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the
> previous, and the conversation tend to follow a
> "theme", like puns on flower names or plans to take
> over the world. When a chatty conversation like
> this develops in another thread, please retag it
> promptly, so it does not disrupt the original
> discussion.
>
> Discuss.
I'd go along with this, although I'd probably feel far too
self-concious to actually *use* it.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - taggingand how it works [message #287824 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 00:10 |
|
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, jester wrote:
> >I don't see the benefit of what you are suggesting.
>
> I don't either. It feels like trying to shoehorn more [I] stuff under a
> different tag.
>
I've participated in a couple of cascades (pretty much valid under the old
definition) in the last few days. Unfortunately they were only really
obviously cascades by the time they were two thirds done anyway.
--
flippa [at] flippac.org
Ivanova is always right.
I will listen to Ivanova.
I will not ignore Ivanova's recomendations.
Ivanova is God.
And, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out!
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287851 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 01:30 |
|
"esmi" <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote in message
news:44905D30.50905 [at] lspace.org...
> on 14/06/2006 17:34 Steve Rogers said the following:
>> "Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Proposed wording:
>>> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
>>> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and
>>> the
>>> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower
>>> names
>>> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation
>>> like
>>> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so
>>> it
>>> does not disrupt the original discussion.
>
> I'm quite happy with this version.
>
>> Alternates?
>> added 2 's' for readibility
>
> I did try - really, I did, but I couldn't spot your 2 's'.
>
adds instead of add
tends instead of tend
> <snip>
>> or
>>
>> minor tweaking
> <snip>
>
> I actually think that last version was the poorest in terms of
> readability. Sorry, Steve.
>
Nay worries, was just examples of re-wording nothing more, I had hoped
someone else would try tweaking themselves to improve readability or
clarity.
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287862 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 02:05 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - [message #287872 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 02:57 |
|
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 01:05 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Arthur Hagen <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with all of the above, but I object on reasons of technicality, as I
> > think tags in themselves are inherently evil, as I believe the subject
> > should reflect the content, not a single letter code embedded in the
> > subject.
>
> Perhaps you could suggest how a news client can be made to filter posts
> on that basis? The tags aren't there to evaluate the quality of the
> content, just to give a very basic guide to the intent. Those of us who
> do not have the time or inclination to read the whole of the flood of
> posts in this ng can then opt out of the areas that do not interest us
> while still having a fair chance of spotting the things that may appeal.
By having different newsgroups for different types of content. That
way, you don't have to download the header before filtering, and save
more bandwidth too.
I'd LOVE to see an alt.fan.pratchett.faq
> You don't have to use the tags, but many find them helpful. You can
> just ignore them.
Which is what I do. Problem is that then people yell at me for ignoring
them.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - [message #287896 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 05:00 |
|
in article 4fapg8F1i7j0uU1 [at] individual.net, Orjan Westin at
nospam [at] cunobaros.com wrote on 14/06/2006 8:49 AM:
> Karen wrote:
>> Archive-name: pratchett/subject-tag-faq
>> Posting-Frequency: weekly (on Wednesday)
>> Last-modified: 27 May 2006
>> URL: <http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
>
> This is a proposal to amend a section of this FAQ to reflect recent
> suggestions on the group. (Crosspost to afpa and abp removed)
>
> Current text is as follows:
>
>> [C] - Cascade - content-free, "articles" deliberately building up a
>> "cascade", or visual effect. Please remember the negative effect
>> of cascades upon afp as well as bandwidth wasted, before starting
>> another cascade and at the least, retag it and trim quotation to
>> the references, plus the cascade itself. Where a cascade arises
>> from another thread please retag it promptly.
>
> It has been suggested that [C] would also be suitable for IRC-style
> conversations and "one-pun-follow-ups". The current text should be
> amended to make this clear, and rephrased to reflect that the tag should
> not be used only to indicate content-free articles (which is rather
> derogatory), or visual effects.
>
> It's time to let this black sheep in the tag family return to the fold,
> and instead of being shunned and derided, let it take its rightful place
> and stand straight, knowing it's loved by many. Let it harbour the
> chatty threads, the banter, the flirting and the serial punning. Let us
> all see it, not as the pariah of the tags, but the guardian of the quick
> wit and friendly playfulness so many of us enjoy! Come, join me,
> brothers and sisters, and rejoice, for no longer will we accept that one
> of our tags is treated as something shameful. It's time to let the
> Cascade come out of the closet in which we have hidden it for far too
> long, and let it shine on us all with its wit and affection!
>
> Erm... If you think it's okay?
>
> Proposed wording:
> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation like
> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
> does not disrupt the original discussion.
>
> Discuss.
There's nothing wrong with this idea, but it will never work. As soon a a
thread is re-named with a [C] tag, it immediately dies, while the cascade
continues in the original thread under a subject line that hasn't been
appropriate since shortly after the first post. This is the way it works,
whether or not it should, and personally I'm quite happy with it this way.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - [message #287897 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 05:04 |
|
in article e6pdqk$sfo$1$830fa17d [at] news.demon.co.uk, Steve Rogers at
steve [at] soapietrekkers.demon.co.uk wrote on 14/06/2006 9:34 AM:
>
> "Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote in message
> news:4fapg8F1i7j0uU1 [at] individual.net...
>> Karen wrote:
>>> Archive-name: pratchett/subject-tag-faq
>>> Posting-Frequency: weekly (on Wednesday)
>>> Last-modified: 27 May 2006
>>> URL: <http://www.lspace.org/faqs/>
>>
>> This is a proposal to amend a section of this FAQ to reflect recent
>> suggestions on the group. (Crosspost to afpa and abp removed)
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Proposed wording:
>> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
>> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
>> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
>> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation
>> like
>> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
>> does not disrupt the original discussion.
>>
>
>
> Alternates?
>
> added 2 's' for readibility
>
> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
> Usually, each post adds just a few lines to the previous, and
> the
> conversation tends to follow a "theme", like puns on flower
> names
> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation
> like
> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
> does not disrupt the original discussion.
etc.
Unfortunately, your reformatting made it much less readable.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287913 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 07:33 |
|
"Alec Cawley" wrote ...
> nospam_MEG_news [at] djelibeybi.idps.co.uk says...
>
>> Surely the solution is for chat-room-type stuff to be held in a
>> chat room or IRC (my daughter uses MSN) or something that
>> is immeasurably more instantaneous than the bog standard
>> newsgroup. <snip>
>
> Suche media are far too fast for my usual rather plodding style and
> rotten typing. I've tried IRC and it really was not my style at all - I
> felt intensely pressured when I wanted to relax.
>
Me too.
Also, we ain't all in the same time zones, so I couldn't have
participated in this discussion if it had been in a chat room.
I also think Lesley & Philippa are right - by the time it becomes
apparent that the thread has become fluffy, it is too late to go
back and retag. The tag won't get used in practise.
And, even if one leg of the trousers gets fluffy, that doesn't
stop someone from going back to the last unfluffy post
and replying to that, thus continuing the unfluffy topic in
another leg.[1]
April.
[1] - I suspect we're talking arachnid trousers, here.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287920 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 08:29 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287938 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 10:55 |
|
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:57:54 -0400, Arthur Hagen
<art [at] broomstick.com> jotted down:
>On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 01:05 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree with all of the above, but I object on reasons of technicality, as I
>> > think tags in themselves are inherently evil, as I believe the subject
>> > should reflect the content, not a single letter code embedded in the
>> > subject.
>>
>> Perhaps you could suggest how a news client can be made to filter posts
>> on that basis? The tags aren't there to evaluate the quality of the
>> content, just to give a very basic guide to the intent. Those of us who
>> do not have the time or inclination to read the whole of the flood of
>> posts in this ng can then opt out of the areas that do not interest us
>> while still having a fair chance of spotting the things that may appeal.
>
>By having different newsgroups for different types of content. That
>way, you don't have to download the header before filtering, and save
>more bandwidth too.
>I'd LOVE to see an alt.fan.pratchett.faq
Yeah, well aren't there allready different newsgroups for
different stuff? I'm sure there's a special newsgroup
dedicated to almost everything that gets talked about here.
The crux is, some (many I'd think) of us prefer having it
all in one place.
--
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] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287946 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 11:17 |
|
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:44:39 +0100, Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk>
wrote:
>I've tried IRC and it really was not my style at all - I
>felt intensely pressured when I wanted to relax.
It tends to vary from channel to channel. There are places where by the
time you type "Yes" or "No" as an answer, the comment you're replying to
has scrolled off the screen. Then there are places where every line can
take five or ten minutes (or longer) to appear.
And, of course, some channels switch from one to the other at semi-random
intervals.
And of course, while there are generally channels out there to suit almost
anyone's style, it's not always easy to find them. A lot of frog-kissing
is involved.
-SteveD (IRCer since 1995)
--
IRC, where men are men, women are men and small children are FBI agents.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - taggingand how it works [message #287978 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 14:03 |
|
on 15/06/2006 01:57 Arthur Hagen said the following:
> On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 01:05 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>> Perhaps you could suggest how a news client can be made to filter posts
>> on that basis?
<snip>
> By having different newsgroups for different types of content.
Do you really think that would work for a social group? One of the
features of such a group is that its topic spread, and, therefore,
content, is quite diverse. Segregate it into different sub-groups and
you'll probably destroy its main attraction and kill the group(s) stone
dead.
Given the sheer number of newsgroups available, it's highly likely that
there is a specific newsgroup already in existence for every single
topic on AFP. Using your theory as a basis, people should be posting to
those groups rather then here. But they don't. Why they choose not to
may vary from poster to poster. Whether they should post some content
elsewhere at times is open to argument. But they don't.
Which, IMI, pretty much proves they they won't post to multiple
alt.fan.pratchett.* groups either.
Nice theory but, I have to say, a typical programmer's approach. ;-)
> That
> way, you don't have to download the header before filtering, and save
> more bandwidth too.
> I'd LOVE to see an alt.fan.pratchett.faq
How would that deal with alt.*.pratchett faqs? Or posts that may not
follow current faq posting conventions?
>> You don't have to use the tags, but many find them helpful. You can
>> just ignore them.
> Which is what I do. Problem is that then people yell at me for ignoring
> them.
I think Bruce meant ignore then as a tool for reading. When posting, it
is worth remembering that some of your readers might find them extremely
useful and ading 3 or 4 characters to the subject of a post isn't really
a great inconvenience, is it? Again, I think it boils down to politeness
and an awareness that you should be posting for other people's enjoyment
as well as your own.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #287992 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 15:56 |
|
Graycat wrote:
> Yeah, well aren't there allready different newsgroups for
> different stuff? I'm sure there's a special newsgroup
> dedicated to almost everything that gets talked about here.
> The crux is, some (many I'd think) of us prefer having it
> all in one place.
Uh-huh. Mainly Pratchett fans, who are usually the kind of people I can get
along with.
I don't have time for a dozen newsgroups; I prefer the eclectic selection
here, which always comes with the pun option as well.
--
4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse, AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons,
Bondage-happy predator, Speaker-To-Students, SadoMangoist,
AFPMistress to peachy, 8'FED's AFPDeliciousSnack, AFPFiance to A.
Nevill , Graycat's Guttersnipe
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} -tagging and how it works [message #288015 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 17:44 |
|
Lesley Weston wrote:
> in article 4fapg8F1i7j0uU1 [at] individual.net, Orjan Westin at
> nospam [at] cunobaros.com wrote on 14/06/2006 8:49 AM:
>
>> Proposed wording:
>> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
>> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and the
>> conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower names
>> or plans to take over the world. When a chatty conversation like
>> this develops in another thread, please retag it promptly, so it
>> does not disrupt the original discussion.
>
> There's nothing wrong with this idea, but it will never work.
Now where have I heard that before? <g>
> As soon
> a a thread is re-named with a [C] tag, it immediately dies, while the
> cascade continues in the original thread under a subject line that
> hasn't been appropriate since shortly after the first post.
I see that Anastasia decided to see whether it would work, and it seems
it does.
What it comes down to is simply consideration. If you (in the general
sense, throughout here) are not willing to consider your readers and
fellow posters, well, that hardly reflects well on your thoughts on
them. Basically, you are saying that your own laziness and comfort is
more important than the enjoyment of everyone else.
It's polite, well-mannered, considerate, and recommended and established
practice on Usenet to:
1. Trim the quotes appropriately, and attribute correctly.
2. Be civil in words and tone.
3. Change the subject line when it does no longer reflect the subject of
a post.
3a. On afp, and other groups using such schemes, this includes the tag.
4. Check if somebody has already given the same or equivalent reply you
were thinking of sending.
5. Consider whether what you are about to post will be informative or
entertaining to readers.
4. above is, of course, subject to propagation times, off-line reading
and so on, but there's absolutely no reason to send a post immediately,
before having read what else has been posted. Usenet is asynchronous.
It doesn't matter much if your post is written immediately on reading
the one you're replying to, and posted at once, or delayed for fifteen
minutes, half an hour or a day or two.
> This is
> the way it works, whether or not it should,
It shouldn't. And in the past, it has worked a lot better here. This
is the way it currently works here, yes, but it need not.
The current state of affairs stems from one of lack of knowledge, or
lack of consideration.
> and personally I'm quite
> happy with it this way.
So... that's a lack of consideration, then?
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #288018 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 17:53 |
|
Steve Rogers wrote:
> Nay worries, was just examples of re-wording nothing more, I had hoped someone
> else would try tweaking themselves to improve readability or clarity.
Steve, while we're on the subject, I feel I should draw to your
attention to the readability of your own posts. You should know that
while I generally read your posts if they are short, I rarely bother
if they are long, because you have a habit of leaving out punctuation
and that can make things very difficult for the reader.
The text above is a good example, where you say: "examples of
re-wording nothing more". What you *meant* was, "nothing more than
examples of re-wording", but by failing to place punctuation before
"nothing", you actually said, literally, "examples of an absence of
anything further being re-worded".
I am not being pedantic; I'm using an example to illustrate a wider
point. Similar examples of omitted punctuation crop up so frequently
in your posts that you should, perhaps, spare a thought for their
accumulative effect upon the reader's brain. :-)
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #288023 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 18:17 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>
>> Proposed wording:
>> [C] - Cascade - a "conversation" of short posts, of puns or banter.
>> Usually, each post add just a few lines to the previous, and
>> the conversation tend to follow a "theme", like puns on flower
>> names or plans to take over the world. When a chatty
>> conversation like this develops in another thread, please
>> retag it promptly, so it does not disrupt the original
>> discussion.
>
> I agree with all of the above, but I object on reasons of
> technicality, as I think tags in themselves are inherently evil, as I
> believe the subject should reflect the content, not a single letter
> code embedded in the subject.
That is a valid point. The subject as a whole should reflect the
content, I agree completely. But tags helps with this, by serving as a
shorthand. For instance, if you are talking about sea-living reptiles
with shells, a valid subject line would be:
"Turtles"
However, someone taking a look at the subject line will not know whether
this is a discussion about actual turtles on Earth, or A'Tuin and its
offspring. On a group in one of the other big usenet hierarchies, this
wouldn't be a concern, as only one of them would be on-topic. In a
social group in the alt hierarchy, like this, the rules of topicality
might be more vague.
However, you can always fix this by being more explicit:
"Turtles of the South Pacific" or "Pratchett's use of turtles as a
symbol of slow but steady progress"
Alternatively, you could use a tag:
"[I] Turtles" or "[R] Turtles"
Yes, of course the verbose versions are more detailed, but the whole
idea of tags is to make it easier for those who are not interested in
every type of subject that's posted here to sort out what they're
interested in.
There are those who are not interested in [F]an activities, like meets
and cons, because they live far from other afpers, or simply don't care
about that sort of thing.
There are those who are not interested in [R]elevant posts, as they
think it's sacrilege to analyse the books, or do not want to risk seeing
spoilers, or simply don't care about that sort of thing.
And so on. Surely, as an experienced sysadmin and programmer, you can
see the benefits of categorization, and use of proper channels/ports?
Now, we could post any given post except those fitting an [F] tag to
another group. [R] and [A] would go to abp, [FAQ] to afpa, [G] to some
rec.game group, [I] to whatever group would be suitable for that
subject, [M] wouldn't be needed, and neither would [C], in both the
previous and suggested sense.
But I notice that you do post [I] here. Like most of us. That's
because, as you know, this is a social group. And so we post what we
think will interest or amuse others here. And because it's a fairly
high-volume group, we use tags to make things more mangeable.
It might be that only a minority of readers and posters care about tags
at all. If so, that's worth discussing. But until there's a consensus
on that, or a clear majority shows they are opposed to tags (and
probably, if I may be so cynical, valid subject lines too), the proper
use of tags remains a common courtesy, just like ensuring subject that
the reflects the content of the post.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #288046 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 19:25 |
|
April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>
> I also think Lesley & Philippa are right - by the time it becomes
> apparent that the thread has become fluffy, it is too late to go
> back and retag.
Well, that would normally be quite apparent with the second or third
post, I would think.
> The tag won't get used in practise.
You think it's too much to ask of afpers to show a bit of thoughtfulness
and consideration?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think unchanging subject lines and tags are a
matter of knowledge and thought, not of selfishness.
The third alternative is that people do not consider tags and subject
lines to be useful or relevant in any way. Even so, a fair number of
people have said, in these [M] threads, that they do, and I would have
thought that there are enough of us to make us worth showing some
consideration. I might be wrong on that, though. But I'd like to think
that afpers are not by nature, and in general, inconsiderate.
> And, even if one leg of the trousers gets fluffy, that doesn't
> stop someone from going back to the last unfluffy post
> and replying to that, thus continuing the unfluffy topic in
> another leg
No, that's true. Finding the unfluffy (or [R]elevant when one of those
threads turn [I]rrelevant without changing tag, for instance) post,
though, is a lot harder. Because the strand of the discussion I'm
interested in, that has an appropriate subject and tag, is one of the
gazillions of posts with the same subject and tag, most of which I may
not be interested in.
And if you multiply my frustration with that of all the posters who
would like to see appropriate tags and subject lines, it becomes mighty
frustrating indeed. And all because somebody did not think before
posting. Changing the subject line and tag takes a few seconds. A few
seconds of a poster's time, to show some courtesy, would prevent a lot
of frustration.
The same is true for snipping, of course. It doesn't take long, and
isn't complicated. But it does make things incredibly much more
pleasant for those who use screen readers, for instance. And it's the
same thing there, it's something that's frustrating for a lot of people.
You have to scroll through page upon page of quoted material - the
payoff for that had better be good. Again, a bit of courtesy and a few
seconds from the poster makes things easier and more enjoyable for
everybody else.
I think people just don't think about this. I wouldn't want to think
it's because people consider a few seconds of their time, and a few
extra keypresses, to be more important than the annoyance and
frustration they give their readers.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #288067 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 20:25 |
|
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, jester wrote:
>
>>> I don't see the benefit of what you are suggesting.
>>
>> I don't either. It feels like trying to shoehorn more [I] stuff
>> under a different tag.
>
> I've participated in a couple of cascades (pretty much valid under
> the old definition) in the last few days. Unfortunately they were
> only really obviously cascades by the time they were two thirds done
> anyway.
And under the new definition, when would you say they were obvious
cascades?
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| [I] Personal writing styles [message #288071 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 20:40 |
|
"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:e6rvne$2mfa$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
> Steve Rogers wrote:
>
>> Nay worries, was just examples of re-wording nothing more, I had
>> hoped someone else would try tweaking themselves to improve
>> readability or clarity.
>
>
> Steve, while we're on the subject, I feel I should draw to your
> attention to the readability of your own posts. You should know that
> while I generally read your posts if they are short, I rarely bother
> if they are long, because you have a habit of leaving out punctuation
> and that can make things very difficult for the reader.
>
I wonder if a straw pole might be an idea, as my normal readership seems
to have little problem. I am wanting to increase the accessibilty of my
writing, now, after all. Best done by email I think, with examples
please, from all you lit-crits.
> The text above is a good example, where you say: "examples of
> re-wording nothing more". What you *meant* was, "nothing more than
> examples of re-wording", but by failing to place punctuation before
> "nothing", you actually said, literally, "examples of an absence of
> anything further being re-worded".
>
Actually what I should've done, re-reading it, was to split it into
sentence fragments rather than using commas. The response was meant to
be 3 seperate entities and written as I speak. My apologies. I also
note that I neglected to insert a couple of words in the last part,
which lead it to possibly mean, something completely different! Oooops.
Mind you, it could be applicable in this case :-)
I seem to recall, we've had similar discussions in the past lol. What
was it last time - use of semi-colons Vs. commas at one point?
> I am not being pedantic; I'm using an example to illustrate a wider
> point. Similar examples of omitted punctuation crop up so frequently
> in your posts that you should, perhaps, spare a thought for their
> accumulative effect upon the reader's brain. :-)
>
I shall be endeavour to be more considerate to your brain ;-)
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #288087 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 22:29 |
|
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>
>> The tag won't get used in practise.
>
> You think it's too much to ask of afpers to show a bit of
> thoughtfulness and consideration?
Rephrase that: You think it's too much to ask of post-September Usenetizens
to show a bit of thoughtfulness and consideration?
The answer must be: No, it's not too much to ask, but it's too much to
expect.
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think unchanging subject lines and tags are a
> matter of knowledge and thought, not of selfishness.
Never attribute to thought that which can be adequately explained by
laziness.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #288104 ] |
Do, 15 Juni 2006 23:37 |
|
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:29:02 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
<art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:
>Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>>
>>> The tag won't get used in practise.
>>
>> You think it's too much to ask of afpers to show a bit of
>> thoughtfulness and consideration?
>
>Rephrase that: You think it's too much to ask of post-September Usenetizens
>to show a bit of thoughtfulness and consideration?
September ended? When?
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #288129 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 00:58 |
|
esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> writes:
> The [C] threads were the nominated 'playgrounds'[1] for the group where
> people could be as silly as they liked and where content was most
> definitely *not* king. It makes perfect sense to me to extend the tag's
> usefulness to cover other similar activities.
There was a time when we split up afp traffic in [R] and [I]
because there was too much [I] stuff, and the [R]-minded folks
were getting a bit annoyed.
Now it seems that [R] traffic has all but left afp (over 2006 so
far, [R]-tagged posts make up less than 3%), and that we are
proposing to split up the remaining (i.e: all) traffic in [I] and
[I-squared] because there is too much [I-squared] stuff, and the
[I]-minded people are getting annoyed.
I can just see what's going to happen a couple of years down the
road...
--
Leo Breebaart <leo [at] lspace.org>
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - tagging and how it works [message #288138 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 01:13 |
|
"Leo Breebaart" <leo [at] lspace.org> wrote in message
news:4fe70bF1ic93kU1 [at] individual.net...
> esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> writes:
>
>> The [C] threads were the nominated 'playgrounds'[1] for the group
>> where
>> people could be as silly as they liked and where content was most
>> definitely *not* king. It makes perfect sense to me to extend the
>> tag's
>> usefulness to cover other similar activities.
>
> There was a time when we split up afp traffic in [R] and [I]
> because there was too much [I] stuff, and the [R]-minded folks
> were getting a bit annoyed.
>
> Now it seems that [R] traffic has all but left afp (over 2006 so
> far, [R]-tagged posts make up less than 3%), and that we are
> proposing to split up the remaining (i.e: all) traffic in [I] and
> [I-squared] because there is too much [I-squared] stuff, and the
> [I]-minded people are getting annoyed.
>
> I can just see what's going to happen a couple of years down the
> road...
Yup someone will suggest using the [R] tag to split the [C] tag and
rename it to Remorseless.
;-)
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - [message #288149 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 03:20 |
|
in article m2829292s4ed0kpqj7mot6g1ki2751tgn9 [at] 4ax.com, Graycat at
rosen.elin [at] gmail.com wrote on 15/06/2006 1:55 AM:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:57:54 -0400, Arthur Hagen
> <art [at] broomstick.com> jotted down:
>
>> On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 01:05 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> Arthur Hagen <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with all of the above, but I object on reasons of technicality, as
>>>> I
>>>> think tags in themselves are inherently evil, as I believe the subject
>>>> should reflect the content, not a single letter code embedded in the
>>>> subject.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could suggest how a news client can be made to filter posts
>>> on that basis? The tags aren't there to evaluate the quality of the
>>> content, just to give a very basic guide to the intent. Those of us who
>>> do not have the time or inclination to read the whole of the flood of
>>> posts in this ng can then opt out of the areas that do not interest us
>>> while still having a fair chance of spotting the things that may appeal.
>>
>> By having different newsgroups for different types of content. That
>> way, you don't have to download the header before filtering, and save
>> more bandwidth too.
>> I'd LOVE to see an alt.fan.pratchett.faq
>
> Yeah, well aren't there allready different newsgroups for
> different stuff? I'm sure there's a special newsgroup
> dedicated to almost everything that gets talked about here.
> The crux is, some (many I'd think) of us prefer having it
> all in one place.
Of course! That's the point. I belong to several professional lists in my
field that I read for interest, knowing exactly what the main focus of each
is going to be. But for entertainment I come to afp, never knowing *what*
I'm going to find.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} [message #288152 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 03:37 |
|
in article 4fddk1F1gv6h8U1 [at] individual.net, Orjan Westin at
nospam [at] cunobaros.com wrote on 15/06/2006 8:44 AM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
<the way afp works>
>> and personally I'm quite
>> happy with it this way.
>
> So... that's a lack of consideration, then?
Does my being happy mean that I don't care whether or not other people are
happy? Perhaps we should take a poll and force everybody including the
lurkers to say what they think on this subject, then we would know what the
majority want. Me, I put "personally" in my comment, but everybody else
seems to be speaking for the whole group.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Proposed change to "{FAQ} {M} {I} {G} {R} {A} {F} - taggingand how it works [message #288185 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 05:28 |
|
Leo Breebaart wrote:
>
> Now it seems that [R] traffic has all but left afp (over 2006 so
> far, [R]-tagged posts make up less than 3%), and that we are
> proposing to split up the remaining (i.e: all) traffic in [I] and
> [I-squared] because there is too much [I-squared] stuff, and the
> [I]-minded people are getting annoyed.
>
> I can just see what's going to happen a couple of years down the
> road...
>
A new book will be released and we'll have new [R] stuff to talk about?
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:20:50 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06528 Sekunden |
