Re: A proposal on how to deal with Inger's posts ...

"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> wrote in news:43cab993$0$85384$dbd4b001
@news.wanadoo.nl:

> Stein R wrote: Xns974CDB185E3C9steinjr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>>> Stein R wrote:
>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>>>>> Stein R wrote:

>>>> Nope. Feel free to post that wherever you like. I was just
>>>> testing your claim that "some of us" were reading all three
>>>> newsgroups so it really was appropriate to post to all three
>>>> of them at the same time.
>
>>> And what is the outcome of your test?
>
> No answer means no outcome?

I posted more or less the same article (but adapted so each of
the three copies was a little different from the other two), and
posted one copy to each newsgroup.

Except I forgot to edit the Newsgroups: line on the third article
- intended for s.c.n only, it accidentally went out to all three
newsgroups.

When that was pointed out to me, I tried to post a cancel. Again -
in the olden days that would have worked, but due to the presence
of too many idiots on the Net, cancels are not honored by so many
newsservers anymore - idiots like to forge cancels of articles written
by others.

Anyways - my intended test was to see what would happen if I did not
crosspost, but instead posted three different separate articles.

And not surprising - the debates which have followed have developed
in a slightly more focused way in each of the three newsgroups than
the followups to crossposted threads normally go.

You are still nitpicking about this and that, but you are only
posting irrelevant off-topic bull*** in sci.archaeology instead
of *also* littering two other newsgroups at the same time.

Getting you enganged in a debate here keep the trash out of the news-
group I care about, and slightly improve signal to noise ratio there.

s.h.m is also slightly better off. And sci.arch is no worse off - you
get *some* of this irrelevant bull***, but less than you would have
gotten if you also had gotten responses from s.h.m and s.c.n.

All taken into account, I would say it is a succesful illustration of
how *not* crossposting, but instead just posting more or less the same
article to three newsgroups improves signal to noise ratio in all three
groups.

Of course - it is a little less convenient for little Peter, which now
will have to read three newsgroups to see everything said about this
subject (which is off-topic for all three groups, incidentally).

But what the hell - he reads all three groups anyways. I am not losing
much sleep over that :-)

Clear enough answer ?

Smile,
Stein
.

Loading