David McRitchie - Where are we on crossposting?

[Richard Choate]

I knew when this first got posted that it would be like similar posts I've
seen regarding behavior of users instead of just solving Excel problems (or
Access or Word, etc). I knew then that this thread would be like cancer and
just keep getting bigger and bigger. At least it isn't so nasty any more. I
think I better just delete the thread now.
R Choate

Yes, this is a brand new thread inspired by other threads, specifically,

http://www.google.com/groups?threadm=#[email protected]
bl&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%2
6selm%3D%2523Ss59VHUDHA.2196%2540TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl

(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?W28165465 )

and

http://www.google.com/groups?threadm=jemcgimpsey-7F716B.22382512072003@msn
ews.microsoft.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3D
UTF-8%26selm%3Djemcgimpsey-7F716B.22382512072003%2540msnews.microsoft.com

(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2C115465 ).

So, what's the verdict?

Is crossposting the evil twin of the devil's spawn, multiposting?

Do we have to refine what we mean by 'fractured thread'?


And why not a few comments while I'm at it?

- If Google Groups is 'storing' posted articles in a single newsgroup - the
first that appears in the Newsgroups tag - no big deal. It's efficient and
VERY
sensible for an NNTP server to store any given message ONLY ONCE. If the
server
accomodates multigigabyte daily throughput, minimizing article storage and
transmission with other NNTP servers is an absolute necessity. As long as
those
articles 'appear' in listings of other crossposted newsgroups, who cares how
they're stored on the server?

- Responding to a crossposted article in FEWER newsgroups without using
Followup-To tags is, in a practical sense, worse than multiposting
(converting
originally crossposted threads to an effectively multiposted ones -
respondents
should know better than OPs). If we're going to gripe about multiposting, we
should come down even harder on people who fracture threads by doing this,
whether they do so out of ignorance or conscious though misguided belief
that
they're 'fixing' crossposting - by converting it to multiposting!

- There are some newsreaders that can't handle crossposting. The only one
I've
used myself is AOL's. To use AOL's, it's necessary that AOL be ISP, but if
so,
all versions of AOL's software since version 4 (both 16- and 32-bit
versions)
allow Outlook Express to run at the same time, so AOL users using version 4
or
later *could* use OE as their newsreader rather than relying on AOL's.

- CDO allows crossposting, but it doesn't mark crossposted articles as read
in
all crossposted newsgroups when read in any one of the crossposted
newsgroups.
However, if you close your browser, then reload it and go back to the *same*
newsgroup in CDO, you'll find that it doesn't retain *any* 'previously read'
indicators. Add that to its stupid sort order which leads so many to repost,
and
it's sad but true that CDO users have a crippled newsgroup experience
ignoring
the crossposting issue. Indeed, if you crosspost to .misc and .links, it'd
be
much easier to find responses in .links made by people reading and
responding in
misc - crossposting to high *AND* low volume newsgroups may actually
*REDUCE*
the instances of CDO reposting - a good thing!

 

[David McRitchie]

Sorry those threads were identical because pointed to the same article in what
Google considers different threads.

Trying to find posting in this newsgroup ( misc) was futile because
it was another newsgroup (newusers) where we were adding comments
to a thread. The original thread (subject: Select printing) was at (10 articles newusers)

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]
I split of the reply to another group and the thread did grab onto
a different thread even though the original message-id should be intact..(4 articles setup

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]
another thread with same name (3 articles misc)
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

--

Sorry, guess I'm just not up to examining what Google does or doesn't
do with same subjects and cross postings.

So if the groups are completely different would you have cross-posting
being good because you have a wider range of expertise.

If the groups are the same would you have cross-posting being good
because you have a wider range.

If it is the same people are in most of the cross-posted groups answering
anyway, would you have that as good because they would have
read them anyway, and if they have a "decent" newsready like you
have and know how to use it properly you only see it once.

I am of the opinion that one should try to select the best group and
bother the fewest people. There are experts in all of the major
Excel groups and they are usually the same people.

And I know for sure we all agree that people should at least try to find
answers first in Google Groups among the Excel newsgroups to see
if they can find an answer or at the very least ask a more meaningful
question about what they know, don't know, tried, or point out an
article that almost solves their problem. I kind of think some of the
biggest mistakes are people who say: "I know I saw this somewhere",
"I can't find my post, did anyone answer it", "this is probably a stupid
question" -- without first searching for an answer.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=group:*Excel*&num=100

Which would also give a much clearer picture of where to post a
particular question if someone is clueless.

Many of the cross postings in the past included English, German, and
Japanese sites. In fact someone was so arrogant as to say
he didn't care because he spoke several languages so any response
he got would be okay. I personally doubt that German and Japanese
sites really want English postings. But those seem to be in the minority
after CDO came along and evidently made cross-posting, attachments,
and HTML look like it was good and encouraged the full power
of the internet (and everbody's servers and PC's inbetween)..

The only valid exceptions I can think of are where more than one
product is involved. Excel and MS Word Mailmerge, Excel and
Access, Excel and MS Money, Excel and Quicken (Intuit), Excel
and HTML. May learn something on some of those.

FWIW, though you said I broke your rules when I said I was going to
test something similar:t :
The original thread was in newusers, which make it hard to find here.
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]
I split of the reply to another group and the thread did grab onto
a different thread even though the original message-id should be intact..
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

I think Google considers any cross posting after five as spam but I simply
hate cross-posting. That would just be an arbitrary figure that they and
administrators might use. Could not find what I was looking for but may
be interesting reading anyway.
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/help.html "spam" "moderated"
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/basics.html "spam" "cross-posting"
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/glossary.html "spam" "cross-post"
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/posting_style.html "spam" "cross"
http://www.google.com/press/newyorker.html interesting, but no mention of deja
You may get more information from moderated newsgroups where they can
set their own rules and enforce them.
--
HTH,
David McRitchie, Microsoft MVP - Excel [site changed Nov. 2001]
My Excel Pages: http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/excel/excel.htm
Search Page: http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/excel/search.htm

Hi Stephen.


I know *I* can disconnect. I was just pondering whether the net itself can
be turned off, in the event the experiment proves to be a failure.
Re-reading Existentialism and Humanism was perhaps a bad idea, with
hindsight. I get the impression that you find being this far off topic
irritating, so I'll end this discussion.

Rgds,
Andy

 

[Harlan Grove]

Sorry, guess I'm just not up to examining what Google does or doesn't
do with same subjects and cross postings.

....

So you're going to disavow the claims that others have attributed to you
with regard to how Google does work in this regard?

So if the groups are completely different would you have cross-posting
being good because you have a wider range of expertise.

If the posted message is relevant/on-topic in all of them, sure. Example:
writing a UDF to return sampling data from a hardware device - crossposting
to .programming, .worksheet.functions, Windows OS and harware newsgroups
would be OK.

If the groups are the same would you have cross-posting being good
because you have a wider range.

Groups are the same? Define 'same'. If you mean .worksheet.functions and
..misc, then there's little point, but first time OPs may not know that.
Outside of those two (there seems to be no good reason they're distinct
newsgroups) there's much less overlaps and commonality of respondents (well,
maybe between .programming and .sdk).

If it is the same people are in most of the cross-posted groups answering
anyway, would you have that as good because they would have
read them anyway, and if they have a "decent" newsready like you
have and know how to use it properly you only see it once.

This is the .misc/.worksheet.functions situation, and in that particular
case the potential benefits of crossposting are negligible.

I am of the opinion that one should try to select the best group and
bother the fewest people. There are experts in all of the major
Excel groups and they are usually the same people.

If we're all reading all the newsgroups, OPs are bothering everyone anyway,
aren't they? Congrats, you're attacking your own arguments. So there's no
particular benefit to selecting the newsgroup. Choose one and only one Excel
newsgroup at random, and you'll get answers from the same people you would
have if you had posted to any of the other newsgroups. Begs the question why
there's more than one.

And I know for sure we all agree that people should at least try to find
answers first in Google Groups among the Excel newsgroups to see
if they can find an answer or at the very least ask a more meaningful
question about what they know, don't know, tried, or point out an
article that almost solves their problem. I kind of think some of the
biggest mistakes are people who say: "I know I saw this somewhere",
"I can't find my post, did anyone answer it", "this is probably a stupid
question" -- without first searching for an answer.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=group:*Excel*&num=100

....

Agreed.

Do the Microsoft people listen when MVPs complain about the evident
difficulty people have using CDO?

Many of the cross postings in the past included English, German, and
Japanese sites. In fact someone was so arrogant as to say
he didn't care because he spoke several languages so any response
he got would be okay. I personally doubt that German and Japanese
sites really want English postings. But those seem to be in the minority
after CDO came along and evidently made cross-posting, attachments,
and HTML look like it was good and encouraged the full power
of the internet (and everbody's servers and PC's inbetween)..

Off-topic is off topic. That particular OP would have needed to have posted
in multiple languages to have achieved minimal relevance in different
language newsgroups. If he didn't, he spammed most of them.

The only valid exceptions I can think of are where more than one
product is involved. Excel and MS Word Mailmerge, Excel and
Access, Excel and MS Money, Excel and Quicken (Intuit), Excel
and HTML. May learn something on some of those.

OK, this is limited remit for crossposting, but better than blanket
comdemnation. The extent to which it may be used is obviously a judgment
call, and judgment is subjective, so views may differ.

FWIW, though you said I broke your rules when I said I was going to
test something similar:t :

....

I'll have to look through the rest before responding. Google does do some
screwy things with threads, joining distinct threads with the same Subject
tag in the same newsgroup, but that happens without any of the messages
being crossposted.

 

[David McRitchie]

I was under the impression that most threads with a few common words
remained separate as long as there was nothing else wrong. Things
such as cross-posting, changing subject, removing or missing a post,
possibly even a reply coming in before the reply it is responding to.

Waiting 12 hours may cut down on the latter one, if it is/was a
problem. .

If you look at some of those long threads that Google has composed
they frequently include many newsgroups over many years, some
of the groups don't even have excel in their usergroup name.


HTH,
David McRitchie, Microsoft MVP - Excel [site changed Nov. 2001]
My Excel Pages: http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/excel/excel.htm
Search Page: http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/excel/search.htm

 

[Harlan Grove]

Trying to find posting in this newsgroup ( misc) was futile because
it was another newsgroup (newusers) where we were adding comments
to a thread. The original thread (subject: Select printing) was at
(10 articles newusers)
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

..gbl

This is CORRECT behavior from Google and newsreaders that support
crossposting generally. Replace 'threadm' with 'selm' in the url, and you'll
see the thread is defined as that containing your response WITH ONLY ONE
newsgroup in the Newsgroups tag. Look at the preceding message in that 4
message thread,

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

and you'll see that it contains *4* newsgroups in the Newsgroups tag. Now
replace 'selm' with 'threadm' in this url, and whatcha know, the 10-message
thread in .newusers reappears.

Google seems to define 'thread' as messages related to the message for which
the threadm's parameter is that message's Message-ID tag. That is, you can
get different threads depending on the message at which you start.

Now you *DID* break the thread in your last response (the second url from
the top of this response), but *YOU* did so by changing the newsgroups tag
from 4 newsgroups to just one (.setup). You deliberately *FAILED* to
crosspost. You converted the previously crossposted thread to a multiposted
thread. I fully agree with you that *MULTIPOSTING* is bad. So shame on you
for doing it! Then again, I responded to your crossposted message only in
..newusers, so shame on me! Google had nothing to do with either of out
actions.

Seriously, when replying to a crossposted message, there's *ONLY* one
correct way to limit the thread to a single newsgroup: *CROSSPOST* your
response to *ALL* crossposted newsgroups, include a Followup-To tag with a
*SINGLE* newsgroup, and state *EXPLICITLY* in your crossposted response that
you have done so. Anything other than leaving the thread crossposted is
irresponsible.

So, could Google have included your last response (only in .setup) in the
thread begun in .newusers? In theory, yes. It could have used the first
message ID in the References tag to do so. However, think about what would
be required. Google would have to assume that related messages could appear
in *ANY* newsgroup, so in order to maintain the level of thread integrity
that you seem to want, it'd have to check message IDs for *ALL* messages
posted for at least the past few weeks. Do you care to guess how many
newsgroup messages that would be? My guess would be high hundreds of
millions to low billions. Do you know what that'd do to Google's response
time? Even assuming an efficient hashing scheme for message IDs, that's
still require walking some long linked lists.

Instead, Google looks for referenced previous messages included in the
message-in-question's References tag in the newsgroups included in the
message-in-question's Newsgroups tag as well as messages in those newsgroups
with the same subject (Subject tag) as the message-in-question. This is a
compromise between thread integrity and efficiency.

another thread with same name (3 articles misc)
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

..gbl

It's not the same thread. The original message is

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

The original message in the 10-message thread was

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

and the original message in your 4-message thread with your .setup-only
response was

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

What happened was that Jason (the OP) multiposted to .misc, .setup and
..newusers, using the same subject line in each. Each has become the head of
different threads - AS THEY SHOULD BE. So Jason committed multiposting, a
heinous affront to the norms of civilizaton. But Google has done nothing
wrong, and crossposting in and of itself has done nothing to fracture this
thread. The original multiposting is responsible for there being 3 different
threads. Your crossposted response to a message only in .newusers to
..newusers, .setup and microsoft.public.excel (not a msnews.microsoft.com
newsgroup, if anyone cares) latches onto the multiposted thread in .setup
because of Google's pseudothreading by Subject tag.

The curious thing is what Google does with the crossposted message in
microsoft.public.excel - it includes the full thread from .newusers. Looks
like Google ignores the newsgroup in which a message is read if there are no
other messages in that newsgroup that are included in the read message's
References tag.

Google's threading leaves a bit to be desired, but it generally fails by
including too many messages in threads rather than too few. The only time is
loses it's place is when respondents reply to crossposted messages in fewer
newsgroups and fail to use the Followup-To tag correctly.

 

[Harlan Grove]

I was under the impression that most threads with a few common words
remained separate as long as there was nothing else wrong. Things
such as cross-posting, changing subject, removing or missing a post,
possibly even a reply coming in before the reply it is responding to.

....

Agreed about all of these *EXCEPT* crossposting. Multiposting causes thread
fracture. Crossposting - AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED - does
*NOT* cause thread fracture. Replying to a crossposted message in fewer
newsgroups *DOES* cause thread fracture, but there is a correct way to do
this - respond to *ALL* crossposted newsgroups with a Followup-To tag set to
one newsgroup *AND* state explicitly that you're doing so. The rest of the
thread will take place in only the follow-up newsgroup, but there'll be a
clear path to it in all the originally crossposted newsgroups.

If you look at some of those long threads that Google has composed
they frequently include many newsgroups over many years, some
of the groups don't even have excel in their usergroup name.

Granted, but not due to crossposting. Crossposted messages may be some of
the messages included in such threads, but there are other reasons they're
included.

 

[David McRitchie]

Same as always against., and your restriction is impossible to
maintain for everyone even if they know the restrictions. .

If all respondents to cross-posted messages maintained identical Newsgroups
tags, meaning same newsgroups in the same order, then there'd be no
fracture.

After really looking you are still not convinced that cross posting is
a bad idea. One more item you, and you
don't need to run more tests was you said that if you enter the
same subject name you automatically get the same thread in
Google that also is false, and as far as I've seen cross-posting
or one of the other problems is always involved. [I would treat
reply-to and changing the group as cross-posting, if you don't
technically include them then include them on my list.].

In Outlook Express you try to post to a group you are not "subscribed" to
you get a message. The message is ambiguous because it looks like
you can't post to the other group(s), when in fact that is only a warning.
As you have shown your previous advice to use Reply-To will always
result in problems, something you can do in Agent, but completely
ignored in OE.

 

[Harlan Grove]

So far I have from you something that we can agree on. If everyone
uses Agent, *and* does not change the groups in the cross-posting,
*and* does not use Follow-Up then everyone will have no problem.

If you don't use Followup-To, then you don't need Agent (or Xnews or any
other newsreader that can support optional tags).

. . . I don't think you have a valid outlook on reality vs. theory,
when you say as long as nobody changes the original groups in
the cross-posting.

OK, but I'll base my beliefs on the assumption that most humans are lazy,
changing newsgroups usually takes extra work, so shouldn't happen too often.
I'd guess that most people who reduce the number of newsgroups to which they
reply believe they're reducing newsgroup traffic when they're not.

I don't see people willingly using Followup-To tags to newsgroups
that they are not subscribed to. And it just never seemed to me that
people were not using it much in groups I used to work with. The closest
was "I posted question in ..., please respond there." which did not use
Followup-To tags.

I'll admit I had forgotten about Followup-To tags when J.E. used one a few
weeks ago. They're very rare in the Excel newsgroups, less rare in
newsgroups I don't read as often as I used to (some of the scripting
language newsgroups).

People not responding to newsgroups to which they don't subscribe is a
problem, but it begs the question that if the OP had posted to a single
newsgroup, would it have been to the one where the potential nonobliging
respondent had read the message?

Look for postings subject:"select printing" group:*excel*
You will see that the posting in misc did not end up in a superthread.

Look at in 12 hours from now when my new post in .misc should
make it to the Google archives.

I understand your point, don't dispute that it may work like you say SOME of
the time, but maintain that it works like I say SOME of the time too. Your
test posting *IS* part of a superthread.

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

 

[David McRitchie]

Hi Harlan,
You're right, It did become part of a Google super thread, and no cross-posting
was involved. Though there was cross-postings in other threads
of the same subject, your point that super threads can be created
with no cross-posting or other actual problem involved seems correct.

Since this super thread is small it can be seen that the level is the same
as the first posting in the super thread. Just does not seem to be
a predictable consistent behavior.

Yet like the others posted to misc it did still remain distinct from
http://google.com/[email protected]

The other thing that I found a surprise was that the summary of
newsgroups posted to did not include anywhere like the number
of newsgroups actually represented.