A Modest Proposal...

[Guy Macon]

As the regular reader of sci.electronics.design knows, we have a
mixture of posts that have to do with electronic design, posts
that are off-topic but still of interest, and posts that have no
value at all. Alas, the same post can be of interest to one person
and of no value at all to another, and both groups of people have
every right to post as they see fit - nobody "owns" the newsgroup.

I believe that I have developed a method that will allow a single
thread of my choosing to stay on-topic (as defined by me) while
in no way hindering anyone from posting what they wish to post in
other threads.

My question is this; assuming for the sake of argument that I can
make this happen, who here would be interested in having such a
thread, who here would object to such threads existing, and who
here would object to the point of actively attempting to disrupt
any such thread?

I have disabled my killfile for any replies that have the exact same
"Subject:" and "Newsgroups:" line that this one has so that I will
see any replies unless the person replying edits those headers.
You can also email your answer to me at engineer[at]guymacon[dot]com
and I will not reveal who you are.

If there is sufficient interest, I will describe my scheme and run a
test thread so that we can evaluate the method and decide whether to
proceed.

 

[Robert Latest]

Guy Macon wrote:

[proposal]

If there is sufficient interest, I will describe my scheme and run a
test thread so that we can evaluate the method and decide whether to
proceed.

I don't know how valuable such a scheme would be. I never have trouble
to quickly browse through the entire group and select only the stuff I
want to read and discard uninteresting posts.

bob

 

[Guy Macon]

Guy Macon wrote:

As the regular reader of sci.electronics.design knows, we have a
mixture of posts that have to do with electronic design, posts
that are off-topic but still of interest, and posts that have no
value at all. Alas, the same post can be of interest to one person
and of no value at all to another, and both groups of people have
every right to post as they see fit - nobody "owns" the newsgroup.

I believe that I have developed a method that will allow a single
thread of my choosing to stay on-topic (as defined by me) while
in no way hindering anyone from posting what they wish to post in
other threads.

My question is this; assuming for the sake of argument that I can
make this happen, who here would be interested in having such a
thread, who here would object to such threads existing, and who
here would object to the point of actively attempting to disrupt
any such thread?

I have disabled my killfile for any replies that have the exact same
"Subject:" and "Newsgroups:" line that this one has so that I will
see any replies unless the person replying edits those headers.
You can also email your answer to me at engineer[at]guymacon[dot]com
and I will not reveal who you are.

If there is sufficient interest, I will describe my scheme and run a
test thread so that we can evaluate the method and decide whether to
proceed.

Two responses total, one by email, one posted. One thought it was
a good idea, one saw no need. Not enough interest to bother with it.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Guy Macon wrote:

As the regular reader of sci.electronics.design knows, we have a
mixture of posts that have to do with electronic design, posts
that are off-topic but still of interest, and posts that have no
value at all. Alas, the same post can be of interest to one person
and of no value at all to another, and both groups of people have
every right to post as they see fit - nobody "owns" the newsgroup.

I believe that I have developed a method that will allow a single
thread of my choosing to stay on-topic (as defined by me) while
in no way hindering anyone from posting what they wish to post in
other threads.

My question is this; assuming for the sake of argument that I can
make this happen, who here would be interested in having such a
thread, who here would object to such threads existing, and who
here would object to the point of actively attempting to disrupt
any such thread?

I have disabled my killfile for any replies that have the exact same
"Subject:" and "Newsgroups:" line that this one has so that I will
see any replies unless the person replying edits those headers.
You can also email your answer to me at engineer[at]guymacon[dot]com
and I will not reveal who you are.

If there is sufficient interest, I will describe my scheme and run a
test thread so that we can evaluate the method and decide whether to
proceed.

There was a slightly less modest proposal a few years back about
using a set of acronyms to delineate exactly how off-topic (and in
which direction) a post and replies were, and to save having to read
some of them because the acronym effectively was the post. Didn't
get anywhere.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark]

I think people should just use very descriptive subject headings, makes
it easy to skim what to read and what not to read.

Mark

 

[Guy Macon]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

There was a slightly less modest proposal a few years back about
using a set of acronyms to delineate exactly how off-topic (and in
which direction) a post and replies were, and to save having to read
some of them because the acronym effectively was the post. Didn't
get anywhere.

That was because the proposer assumed that he was dealing
with rational adults who would be willing to, if not actually
cooperate, at least not actively work awards stopping others
from having an on-topic thread. The mere existence of some
sci.electronics.design users working together to discuss
electronics without the thread devolving into a discussion
about politics attracted off-topic posts that were purposely
marked as being on-topic. It soon became clear that any such
system can be vandalized.

The current Modest Proposal is based upon a scheme where, instead
of a group of users cooperating, a single individual can control
what gets posted to a thread and interested participants can choose
whether they like the way that thread is run. Vandals can still
post off-topic to other threads or make off-topic posts that fail
to contain the attribute that the on-topic posters are using to
recognize each others posts, but they cannot post with the attribute
that the on-topic posters use to recognize each others posts - that
attribute can only be applied by the one person who controls the
thread. (That person will have to not abuse his power, of course,
or he won't have any participants).

I am still at one vote for such a system though, and that's not
nearly enough interest to make it worth even trying.

 

[Guy Macon]

Mark wrote:

I think people should just use very descriptive subject headings,
makes it easy to skim what to read and what not to read.

Alas, there are participants in sci.electronics.design who
insist on injecting off-topic political posts into threads
without changing the subject heading. (It was, as one might
expect, a lot worse right before the recent US election.)
Rude, yes, but they own sci.electronics.design just as much as
those who wish to discuss electronics design do.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Guy Macon wrote:

Alas, there are participants in sci.electronics.design who
insist on injecting off-topic political posts into threads
without changing the subject heading.

Let's imagine you are a rock and pop music fan. You find a newsgroup
where a bunch of old legends participate, in person, for real.
You would like listening to them, wouldn't you?

But what happens when you discover that they are not only talking about
rock music, they talk about a lot of other things too.

Paul McCartney likes to discuss gardening now and then, and all of the
Rolling Stones guys are interested in camping and are engaged in the
life of their grandchildren. Ringo Starr talks about butterflies.
Waylon Jennings talks about his woman all the time.

Would you start telling them to stop writing off-topic messages?
Would you tell them how to behave in a rockmusic newsgroup?

Or would you lay low for a few years first, to find out what is going
on and what rules these guys want in "their" newsgroup? Maybe you
should wait until you have become a member of their community and until
you too are a legend in rock music until you start telling such people
what to do.

When I came to this newsgroup the first time I saw the names of several
writers I had read earlier, authors of articles and books I had learned
electronics from for several decades. I wouldn't dream of telling such
a bunch of very intelligent and highly educated people how to behave, I
learn the codes and try to adapt to the community instead.

;-)


--
Roger J.

 

[Guy Macon]

Roger Johansson wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

Alas, there are participants in sci.electronics.design who
insist on injecting off-topic political posts into threads
without changing the subject heading.

Let's imagine you are a rock and pop music fan. You find a newsgroup
where a bunch of old legends participate, in person, for real.
You would like listening to them, wouldn't you?

Sure. Especially if I myself had some measure of commercial success
as a musician. If you count the raw number of electronic products
put into consumer's hands, I have reason to believe that I have
created more products than everyone else here put together. Not that
making lots of units is the best metric of "legendness" (I personally
think that elegant designs are far more important), but it is a factor.

But what happens when you discover that they are not only talking about
rock music, they talk about a lot of other things too.

Paul McCartney likes to discuss gardening now and then, and all of the
Rolling Stones guys are interested in camping and are engaged in the
life of their grandchildren. Ringo Starr talks about butterflies.
Waylon Jennings talks about his woman all the time.

If I was uninterested in such things and only interested in music,
I would filter out the posts that don't interest me.

Would you start telling them to stop writing off-topic messages?

You appear to be confused about the difference between telling
someone not to do something and asking them not to do something.

Would you tell them how to behave in a rockmusic newsgroup?

You appear to be confused about the difference between telling
someone how to behave and asking them to behave in a certain way.

Or would you lay low for a few years first,

How many would you like? Google Groups says my oldest post to
sci.electronics.design was in February of 2000 - about a month
before Google's oldest post my you. (My recollection is that
my first post was in 1998, but Google doesn't have a record of
that.)

to find out what is going on and what rules these guys want
in "their" newsgroup?

Nope. I don't care at all about that. Just as I have no desire
to set rules for them, I also have no interest in any rules they
might set for me. I think that making polite requests is far
better than making rules.

Maybe you should wait until you have become a member of their
community and until you too are a legend in rock music until you
start telling such people what to do.

You appear to be confused about the difference between telling
someone what to do and asking to do something.

If you count "legendness", I consider myself to be somewhere
between the most legendary and least legendary sci.electronics.design
participants.

When I came to this newsgroup the first time I saw the names of several
writers I had read earlier, authors of articles and books I had learned
electronics from for several decades. I wouldn't dream of telling such
a bunch of very intelligent and highly educated people how to behave,

You appear to be confused about the difference between telling
someone how to behave and asking them to behave in a certain way.

I learn the codes and try to adapt to the community instead.

I am as much a member of this community as anyone here. Besides
my work in consumer electronics, some of my designs are found in
commercial aircraft CD/DVD mastering plants, industrial robots, etc.

I do strongly agree about not telling people what to do, which is why
I wrote "they own sci.electronics.design just as much as those who
wish to discuss electronics design do." I don't, however see a
community consensus that says that one cannot make a polite request
concerning how to title posts.

You are, of course, free to request that I not make such requests.

 

[John Perry]

Guy Macon wrote:

Mark wrote:


I think people should just use very descriptive subject headings,
makes it easy to skim what to read and what not to read.


Alas, there are participants in sci.electronics.design who
insist on injecting off-topic political posts into threads
without changing the subject heading. (It was, as one might
expect, a lot worse right before the recent US election.)
Rude, yes, but they own sci.electronics.design just as much as
those who wish to discuss electronics design do.


Yeah, on SED I typically stop reading a thread after 10-20 posts,

because they've left the subject far behind. I don't have time to waste
on the posturing and strutting that goes on too often.

Usually I'll glance at an occasional message in a long-running thread,
and once in a long while I'll find that someone has either gone off onto
a different, but interesting, topic, or returned to the original thread.
Then I'll have to dig back into the archives to see if there's
anything worth digging out.

I always wonder whether I missed something good, but I can't spend all
day every day reading trash, hoping to find something worthwhile.

So I'm an enthusiastic advocate of your idea, Guy.

John Perry

 

[Guy Macon]

John Perry wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

Mark wrote:

I think people should just use very descriptive subject headings,
makes it easy to skim what to read and what not to read.

Alas, there are participants in sci.electronics.design who
insist on injecting off-topic political posts into threads
without changing the subject heading. (It was, as one might
expect, a lot worse right before the recent US election.)
Rude, yes, but they own sci.electronics.design just as much as
those who wish to discuss electronics design do.

Yeah, on SED I typically stop reading a thread after 10-20 posts,
because they've left the subject far behind. I don't have time to waste
on the posturing and strutting that goes on too often.

Usually I'll glance at an occasional message in a long-running thread,
and once in a long while I'll find that someone has either gone off onto
a different, but interesting, topic, or returned to the original thread.
Then I'll have to dig back into the archives to see if there's
anything worth digging out.

I always wonder whether I missed something good, but I can't spend all
day every day reading trash, hoping to find something worthwhile.

So I'm an enthusiastic advocate of your idea, Guy.

John Perry

I just rejected a post that attempted to start a discussion about
the constitution vote in Europe in this thread. As long as you
read the threads in misc.business.product-dev, I promise that they
will stay on the topic of product development. All bets are off
if you read the threads in sci.electronics.design, of course; the
usual suspects can fill the thread with politics by posting only
to s.e.d. without crossposting to m.b.p-d.