C'mon guys. Trim before submit.

VanguardLH wrote:
> C'mon guys. Trim before submit.

I quite agree with you. But when I've done that in the past, I get
complaints from people. They say that it somehow messes up their
threads. It must be some newsreader client other than TB, because I
never get that problem, and your latest message dovetailed into place.

Ed

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> C'mon guys. Trim before submit.
>
> I quite agree with you. But when I've done that in the past, I get
> complaints from people. They say that it somehow messes up their
> threads. It must be some newsreader client other than TB, because I
> never get that problem, and your latest message dovetailed into place.

Hierarchy of newsgroup (and e-mail) articles is by the References
header. The client creates that header in a new submit to the NNTP
server to track articles within a thread and its subthreads. Anyone
that says altering the content of quoted content in their replies
affects threading is bullshitting you, or hasn't a clue how threading
works.

If the boobs are using some NNTP-to-HTTP gateway to leech from Usenet by
using web-based forums, well, tell them to use a real NNTP client
instead, and get off the teat of a web client. Web forums may provide
collapsible sections in a reply to hide the content, but that's to
accommodate the web-weaned boobs that are too lazy ever trim.

VanguardLH wrote:
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> C'mon guys. Trim before submit.
>>
>> I quite agree with you. But when I've done that in the past, I get
>> complaints from people. They say that it somehow messes up their
>> threads. It must be some newsreader client other than TB, because I
>> never get that problem, and your latest message dovetailed into place.
>
> Hierarchy of newsgroup (and e-mail) articles is by the References
> header. The client creates that header in a new submit to the NNTP
> server to track articles within a thread and its subthreads. Anyone
> that says altering the content of quoted content in their replies
> affects threading is bullshitting you, or hasn't a clue how threading
> works.
>
> If the boobs are using some NNTP-to-HTTP gateway to leech from Usenet by
> using web-based forums, well, tell them to use a real NNTP client
> instead, and get off the teat of a web client. Web forums may provide
> collapsible sections in a reply to hide the content, but that's to
> accommodate the web-weaned boobs that are too lazy ever trim.

I'm going to follow your advice, Vanguard, and trim all future postings
that get too lengthy.
If objections arise, we can handle them appropriately.

Ed

In article <ut6enc$3f29i$1@dont-email.me>,
Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

> I'm going to follow your advice, Vanguard, and trim all future postings
> that get too lengthy.
> If objections arise, we can handle them appropriately.

> Ed

Oh yes, what a boon that would be. :-)

A thread I was following very recently contained 8 levels of pointless
quoting, what a farce. :-(

And many times I've seen more. IIRC. Thirteen quote levels was the most
I've encountered.

Brevity, dear friends...

D

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Hierarchy of newsgroup (and e-mail) articles is by the References
>> header. The client creates that header in a new submit to the NNTP
>> server to track articles within a thread and its subthreads. Anyone
>> that says altering the content of quoted content in their replies
>> affects threading is bullshitting you, or hasn't a clue how threading
>> works.
>>
>> If the boobs are using some NNTP-to-HTTP gateway to leech from Usenet by
>> using web-based forums, well, tell them to use a real NNTP client
>> instead, and get off the teat of a web client. Web forums may provide
>> collapsible sections in a reply to hide the content, but that's to
>> accommodate the web-weaned boobs that are too lazy ever trim.
>
> I'm going to follow your advice, Vanguard, and trim all future
> postings that get too lengthy.

I suspect those using web forums to Usenet are complaining about missing
content that gets collapsed. Rather than read the prior posts, those
users want the entire thread in one post, and can expand and collapse
whatever "section" they want (of prior posts in the thread). They're
lazy using a web interface to Usenet, and they're too lazy to both
reading through a thread (and want the entire thread collapsed in one
post). The other problem they have is that most web forums are not
hierarchical. They're flattened. They don't honor the References
headers (and some web-based Usenet forums fuck it up by not using what's
there or not adding their own on a submit). They can't, because their
flat. You can't tell who replied to whom, because there is no
threading. It's gets a mess in a flat web forum trying to figure out
the order of posts within subthreads (their aren't any, just one flat,
single-tier of posts).

> If objections arise, we can handle them appropriately.

There are some web forums that do show threading, but many do not. When
someone complains, ask them if they are using an NNTP client to do
Usenet, or some web forum. If a web forum, tell them to ask the forum
admin to configure, if possible, their articles to show threading
instead of a flat list. Likely whatever forum software is used there
does not have the ability to show threading, just collapsing/expanding
of prior posts within the same post. If they find the web gateway to
Usenet difficult to use due to lack of proper threading, tell them to
move to an NNTP client.

News <news@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <ut6enc$3f29i$1@dont-email.me>,
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to follow your advice, Vanguard, and trim all future postings
>> that get too lengthy.
>> If objections arise, we can handle them appropriately.
>
>> Ed
>
> Oh yes, what a boon that would be. :-)
>
> A thread I was following very recently contained 8 levels of pointless
> quoting, what a farce. :-(
>
> And many times I've seen more. IIRC. Thirteen quote levels was the most
> I've encountered.
>
> Brevity, dear friends...
>
> D

Since there is threading due to the References header (that the client
is expected to add, but some web gateway fuck up or omit), the only
quoted content in a reply should be what is germaine to that reply, not
everything that has ever been said in a subthread. If someone wants
further context, just go back to read the prior posts in a subthread.

Similarly, you get users that include every attribute they can in an
attribution line, like:

<name> <address> in <newsgroup> on <date> <time> in <message-id> wrote:

A bunch of noise rather than making it easy to determine who is being
quoted, especially when multiple posters are being quoted. The
<newsgroup> is already obvious by you choosing to visit that newsgroup
to see their post. The Date header in their post tells you when they
submitted. The Message-ID header in their post gives you that info. If
you can't see the parent post for the MID, are you really going to get
the parent article from elsewhere, like Howard Knight archive, versus
just read what was said in the article you can see? Don't delete posts
with your filters. Hide them instead, so you can later view them if
needed. Everything else in the attribution line but <name> and
<address> (their nym) is superflous.

In fact, some folks just must append their name at the end of their post
despite they already identified themself in their From header.

From: <name> <address>
....
<name>

Yeah, we already know the name from the From headers. I don't know of
any GUI NNTP client that doesn't show the From header in its default
view of headers list pane and in the preview pane. Not sure what
command line console-mode text clients will show, but when listing an
article they should show the From header for the user to know who said
what.

I hide (strip) all signatures. They are off-topic to the newsgroup and
to the article, some ego-stroking fluff, and too often spam to advertise
their political or theological preference, some web site they operate,
or some stupid cutsy MOTD (message of the day) crap that is totally
irrelevant to the newsgroup and article. Sometimes sigs do provide
relevant information, like how to send the poster a message via e-mail,
but discussions in Usenet should remain in Usenet, not taken offline
without damn good reason to perturb the community with a disconnected
discussion that went offline.