V
Vanguard
Do you actually actively participate in all those newsgroups? Have you
lurked in each one long enough to know if your post is on-topic to each
newsgroup? Don't go by their names. Sometimes there is a charter or
FAQ that you can find on why the newsgroup was created (but sometimes
the purpose of a group will drift away from that initial intent). Also,
remember that you are asking OTHERS for help. That means their reply,
by default, will go to each of those cross-posted newsgroups. Even if
you happen to regularly visit each newsgroup to know that your post is
on-topic to each one, that doesn't mean the respondents are regulars of
those other groups or are familiar enough with them to feel comfortable
in submitting their reply over there. Rather than shotgun your post to
multiple groups, focus on a group that can best answer your question.
No one appreciates coming out of the store to find someone had canvassed
every car in the parking lot with a flyer.
Yes, cross-posting is supported for a reason but not for your reason.
In fact, some newservers will restrict the number of groups in a
cross-posted message, even for a reply. This results in some
respondents getting an error from their NNTP server that their [reply]
post specified too many groups, so then they have to decide which groups
to delete from the Newsgroups header, and since they don't regularly
visit all the newsgroups then the choice of which ones to delete is
difficult. Most times a single group is all that is needed for a post.
Perhaps 2 groups are directly applicable, especially if they are pretty
much duplicates of each other (like microsoft.public.outlook and
microsoft.public.outlook.general). The more groups you include for
cross-posting, the more likely that your post is off-topic or
inappropriate to some of them. Just because a thing can be done doesn't
mean it should be done.
Why and How to Cross-post
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
The use of the Follow-Up To header is mentioned. However, I consider
its use in most situations to be very rude. Its intent is to direct
replies to the OP's "home" group which may not be a group visited by the
respondents. This means the respondent's reply gets disconnected
because it went into a different group than where they read your post.
They saw your post in their group yet their reply won't go there and
instead off to someone else's group. The result is that the thread(s)
get disconnected. If there was sufficient reason to include your post
in multiple groups by cross-posting it then the replies are equally
appropriate to each group and those visitors of those groups should be
able to continue the discussion without having to get forced over to a
group that they don't inhabit. When I have seen Follow-Up To use, its
use was rude, and typical of malcontents and spammers that are trying to
hide negative replies by shoving them off somewhere else. Since the
message was cross-posted, the OP can read the discussion in whatever is
their "home" group without having to force respondents to lose the
thread in their own group.
lurked in each one long enough to know if your post is on-topic to each
newsgroup? Don't go by their names. Sometimes there is a charter or
FAQ that you can find on why the newsgroup was created (but sometimes
the purpose of a group will drift away from that initial intent). Also,
remember that you are asking OTHERS for help. That means their reply,
by default, will go to each of those cross-posted newsgroups. Even if
you happen to regularly visit each newsgroup to know that your post is
on-topic to each one, that doesn't mean the respondents are regulars of
those other groups or are familiar enough with them to feel comfortable
in submitting their reply over there. Rather than shotgun your post to
multiple groups, focus on a group that can best answer your question.
No one appreciates coming out of the store to find someone had canvassed
every car in the parking lot with a flyer.
Yes, cross-posting is supported for a reason but not for your reason.
In fact, some newservers will restrict the number of groups in a
cross-posted message, even for a reply. This results in some
respondents getting an error from their NNTP server that their [reply]
post specified too many groups, so then they have to decide which groups
to delete from the Newsgroups header, and since they don't regularly
visit all the newsgroups then the choice of which ones to delete is
difficult. Most times a single group is all that is needed for a post.
Perhaps 2 groups are directly applicable, especially if they are pretty
much duplicates of each other (like microsoft.public.outlook and
microsoft.public.outlook.general). The more groups you include for
cross-posting, the more likely that your post is off-topic or
inappropriate to some of them. Just because a thing can be done doesn't
mean it should be done.
Why and How to Cross-post
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
The use of the Follow-Up To header is mentioned. However, I consider
its use in most situations to be very rude. Its intent is to direct
replies to the OP's "home" group which may not be a group visited by the
respondents. This means the respondent's reply gets disconnected
because it went into a different group than where they read your post.
They saw your post in their group yet their reply won't go there and
instead off to someone else's group. The result is that the thread(s)
get disconnected. If there was sufficient reason to include your post
in multiple groups by cross-posting it then the replies are equally
appropriate to each group and those visitors of those groups should be
able to continue the discussion without having to get forced over to a
group that they don't inhabit. When I have seen Follow-Up To use, its
use was rude, and typical of malcontents and spammers that are trying to
hide negative replies by shoving them off somewhere else. Since the
message was cross-posted, the OP can read the discussion in whatever is
their "home" group without having to force respondents to lose the
thread in their own group.
