The alt.* expiration time at netcom is currently a couple days --- 1 day
for some of the noisier groups. It happens that I cross-post my FAQ
(the JPEG FAQ) into some of the disfavored groups like
alt.binaries.pictures.*, because it is needed and on-topic there.
I am not thrilled about a policy that will prevent it from sticking
around even in the newsgroups that are in better repute.
In all probability, policies like this will discourage FAQ authors from
crossposting FAQs into the "seedier side of town". Thereby further
lowering the knowledge level and increasing the noise level in alt.*,
without saving a nickel on bandwidth of the FAQ itself.
That's why I think the notion is silly and counterproductive.
> For a FAQ posted weekly, this means
> that at any given time a user has about a 50% chance of finding the FAQ in
> his/her newsfeed. Of course, your milage may vary, but I find this an
> acceptable outcome. Besides, how many people grep news.answers for FAQs
> anyway - there are something like 4000 there on a regular basis.
Who said anything about grepping news.answers? The way it is supposed
to work, a FAQ sticks around in its *subject* newsgroups for the inter-
posting interval. Thus a newbie looking in a particular group for the
first time is very likely (not just 50%-or-less likely) to find the FAQ
there, and even fairly likely to find it at the top of the article list.
BTW, I believe the customary posting interval for many FAQs is two weeks
or a month (I use two weeks myself). Upping the frequency to a week or
less in order to combat silly expiration policies will further increase
netnews traffic; another counterproductive consequence.
> <warm applause> An excellent spam fighting tool. I'm of the opinion (and
> I'm sure people here will disagree) that if your posting something to more
> than a certain number of groups, it needs to be more tailored or your
> selection of groups needs to be more certain. Certain FAQs certainly are
> shuffled around the newsgroups a bit - my own appears in a.f.s-b,
> alt.answers and news.answers - this would be 3 of the 4 netcom would allow.
(a) I understood the policy to be that 4 is where you get hit. Plus or
minus one doesn't matter a lot, though.
(b) Crosspost to more than one subject newsgroup, and your FAQ is toast.
With the current proliferation of overlapping newsgroups, it's the rare
FAQ that is really only appropriate to one newsgroup. I post the JPEG FAQ
into nine groups, counting three *.answers groups, and I could easily name
several more where it would be welcome and on-topic (indeed, where I've
had *requests* to post it). I would be over the threshold even if I
dropped alt.* entirely.
> Naaaah. That's too short for me to go away on Friday, come back on Monday
> and see what I missed. I don't think it'll get any lower than 3 days
> without a lot of complaining.
Guess again. It's *already* well below 3 days at many sites, especially
for newsgroups that the admin regards as noise. If your site can afford
more than 3 days across the board, you're not taking anything like a full
feed.
> Personally, I would like to see a rethinking of the whole news.answers
> concept - perhaps a bot could keep FAQs current in the *answers groups or
> something.
This we agree on --- expiration policies like the new one at netcom will
force a revision of the way things have been done in *.answers.
regards, tom lane
PS:
> The fact that something this revolutionary is coming from *Netcom* startles
> me. Netcom is to order on the internet as Larry Flynt is to decency in
> communications. I welcome their policy changes.
I could do without this unnecessary and ill-formed slam against my ISP,
thank you. A long time ago, netcom was indeed lax about abuse policies,
but they've cleaned up their act pretty well. However, let's not argue
that on this list.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved