[OT] A Modest Proposal to increase the usability of sci.elec

[Guy Macon]

There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.

If a small percentage of the users of this newsgroup start adding
the string "[OT]" to subject lines when the discussion strays away
from electronics design and deleting the string when the discussion
drifts back to the topic of electronics design, those who are only
interested in electronics design could easily filter out the rest.
It only takes a small percentage of the users, because the rest tend
to keep the subject line when replying.

TECHNICAL ISSUES:
If you agree with this scheme, please use the string "[OT]" (without
the quotes) and not some variation such as "OT:", [ot] or [Off-Topic].
The idea is to have a string that the filters can recognize and which
will not be found in ordinary subject lines. Also, please let "Re:"
stay first so that newsreaders don't insert multiple "Re:" strings.

As always, discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of this
proposal is most welcome.

--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

 

[Active8]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:

There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

Discussing OT here keeps a lot of undesireables away. Like the
jackasses who would hang out in alt.politics

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.

Yes. I suggested it months ago. If you want to discuss electronics,
do it in alt.politics where it belongs Actually, I just thought
it would be fun to go over there and start talking EE. That's what I
*really* suggested.

If a small percentage of the users

Why not all of 'em?

of this newsgroup start adding
the string "[OT]" to subject lines when the discussion strays away
from electronics design and deleting the string when the discussion
drifts back to the topic of electronics design, those who are only
interested in electronics design could easily filter out the rest.
It only takes a small percentage of the users, because the rest tend
to keep the subject line when replying.

TECHNICAL ISSUES:

This sounds almost as complicated as crosspost management which
seems to be an occasional problem. It would probably be as hard to
do as getting the SFB CB AH driver in front of you to leave enough
room on the right for you to slide around him and make that right
turn on red after nearly complete stop.

I'm not saying these people are idiots ( the crossposters and
crosspost propagaters... gators... that is, not the drivers - they
*are* idiots) it's just that it's not something people consciously
think to do before hitting "send".

If you agree with this scheme, please use the string "[OT]" (without
the quotes) and not some variation such as "OT:", [ot] or [Off-Topic].

PIC List uses [OT:] or [OT]: but the former is preferred since the
latter may be handled by some readers in the same way as Re: and get
stripped. "OT:" would suffice here. A reader with a proper regular
expression parser can handle the filter rules without us having to
set a concrete format.

The idea is to have a string that the filters can recognize and which
will not be found in ordinary subject lines. Also, please let "Re:"
stay first so that newsreaders don't insert multiple "Re:" strings.

But as you may have noticed, everytime Dyson changes a subject line,
a new thread starts in all our "Fisher Price" readers and in
Google's archive.

As always, discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of this
proposal is most welcome.

Some people already do what you've suggested. I suppose there's been
a bit more OT lately with all the "news" to be discussed.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

TECHNICAL ISSUES:
If you agree with this scheme, please use the string "[OT]" (without
the quotes) and not some variation such as "OT:"

Actually, OT: is the best way of doing it to minimise filtering
postings containing legitimate electronic abbreviations.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Active8 wrote...

Some people already do what you've suggested. I suppose there's
been a bit more OT lately with all the "news" to be discussed.

The way it's been going, we should be adding [OT:] to any
electronics postings we make.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

 

[Daniel Haude]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700,
Guy Macon <> wrote
in Msg. <iPudnVMy4t4rVTzdRVn-vA@speakeasy.net>

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.

There is. Just look at the subject lines and read only the threads that
you're interested in. This "technique", in conjunction with a good
newsreader and a well-kept scorefile, works so well that there isn't any
need for more elaborate schemes. Of course it sometimes happens that
threads drift off-topic, but as soon as that becomes known, you can ignore
them as well.

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

 

[John Fields]

On 12 May 2004 04:02:59 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Active8 wrote...

Some people already do what you've suggested. I suppose there's
been a bit more OT lately with all the "news" to be discussed.

The way it's been going, we should be adding [OT:] to any
electronics postings we make.

---
Funny!

--
John Fields

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:

There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.

If a small percentage of the users of this newsgroup start adding
the string "[OT]" to subject lines when the discussion strays away
from electronics design and deleting the string when the discussion
drifts back to the topic of electronics design, those who are only
interested in electronics design could easily filter out the rest.
It only takes a small percentage of the users, because the rest tend
to keep the subject line when replying.

TECHNICAL ISSUES:
If you agree with this scheme, please use the string "[OT]" (without
the quotes) and not some variation such as "OT:", [ot] or [Off-Topic].
The idea is to have a string that the filters can recognize and which
will not be found in ordinary subject lines. Also, please let "Re:"
stay first so that newsreaders don't insert multiple "Re:" strings.

As always, discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of this
proposal is most welcome.

Another way to go would be to prepend [SED] to messages that *do* pertain
to electronics design.

Bob
--
"Just machines that make big decisions
programmed by fellas with compassion and vision."
-D. Fagen
(remove yomama)

 

[Genome]

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:iPudnVMy4t4rVTzdRVn-vA@speakeasy.net...
|
| There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
| than electronics design. While I personally wish that these
discussions
| would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
| for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this
issue,
| and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
| have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
| other topics.
|
| Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
| topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
| discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.
|
| If a small percentage of the users of this newsgroup start adding
| the string "[OT]" to subject lines when the discussion strays away
| from electronics design and deleting the string when the discussion
| drifts back to the topic of electronics design, those who are only
| interested in electronics design could easily filter out the rest.
| It only takes a small percentage of the users, because the rest tend
| to keep the subject line when replying.
|
| TECHNICAL ISSUES:
| If you agree with this scheme, please use the string "[OT]" (without
| the quotes) and not some variation such as "OT:", [ot] or [Off-Topic].
| The idea is to have a string that the filters can recognize and which
| will not be found in ordinary subject lines. Also, please let "Re:"
| stay first so that newsreaders don't insert multiple "Re:" strings.
|
| As always, discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of this
| proposal is most welcome.
|
| --
| Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
| Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
| have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
| Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/
|

How about, no.

If you want to ask an electronics question then do so. If you want to
answer one then do so.

That would appear to cover your desire to discuss electronics.

Job done, find another project to manage.

DNA

 

[Genome]

"Paul Burridge" <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k9s3a09kd8ac811rn0jka1lvp99tp14l38@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon
| <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
|
| >TECHNICAL ISSUES:
| >If you agree with this scheme, please use the string "[OT]" (without
| >the quotes) and not some variation such as "OT:"
|
| Actually, OT: is the best way of doing it to minimise filtering
| postings containing legitimate electronic abbreviations.
| --
|
| "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

No, actually the best way of avoiding pointless discussions about flaky
harmonic generation schemes is to ignore your posts.

Personally speaking I filter bugger all but then I'm not the sort of
person to get up tight about anyone's nasal harvesting techniques.

DNA

 

[Mark]

Actually adding SED might be the BEST way to prevent the crossposting junk
that gets here from other groups.

Mark

"Bob Stephens" <stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1xpxu9zl4hiu8.sbb4afeeovn3.dlg@40tude.net...

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:

There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.

If a small percentage of the users of this newsgroup start adding
the string "[OT]" to subject lines when the discussion strays away
from electronics design and deleting the string when the discussion
drifts back to the topic of electronics design, those who are only
interested in electronics design could easily filter out the rest.
It only takes a small percentage of the users, because the rest tend
to keep the subject line when replying.

TECHNICAL ISSUES:
If you agree with this scheme, please use the string "[OT]" (without
the quotes) and not some variation such as "OT:", [ot] or [Off-Topic].
The idea is to have a string that the filters can recognize and which
will not be found in ordinary subject lines. Also, please let "Re:"
stay first so that newsreaders don't insert multiple "Re:" strings.

As always, discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of this
proposal is most welcome.

Another way to go would be to prepend [SED] to messages that *do* pertain
to electronics design.

Bob
--
"Just machines that make big decisions
programmed by fellas with compassion and vision."
-D. Fagen
(remove yomama)

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

Simple, Just start posting some REAL design issues.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Richard Henry]

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c7t09302h4r@drn.newsguy.com...

Active8 wrote...

Some people already do what you've suggested. I suppose there's
been a bit more OT lately with all the "news" to be discussed.

The way it's been going, we should be adding [OT:] to any
electronics postings we make.

Short for On Topic?

 

[Active8]

On 12 May 2004 12:34:01 GMT, Daniel Haude wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700,
Guy Macon <> wrote
in Msg. <iPudnVMy4t4rVTzdRVn-vA@speakeasy.net

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.

There is. Just look at the subject lines and read only the threads that
you're interested in. This "technique", in conjunction with a good
newsreader and a well-kept scorefile, works so well that there isn't any
need for more elaborate schemes. Of course it sometimes happens that
threads drift off-topic, but as soon as that becomes known, you can ignore
them as well.

--Daniel

And IME once the subthread drifts, it doesn't return. That's where
knowing how to score articles becomes important.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.

The off-topic threads - or the threads that haven't changed name, but
have drifted off - are easily ignored. If you want to discuss
electronic design, just do it.

Actually, sed is mostly limited by the lack of interesting input.
Given that there are hundreds of thousands of English-speaking EEs in
the world, a pitifully small number of interesting issues come up
here. EEs seem reluctant to really discuss what they're doing, and
even then they usually only provide a tiny piece of the picture, and
ask questions that are so constrained and out-of-context that they are
hard to answer.

What are you working on these days?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 14:56:16 +0100, "Genome" <Genome@nothere.com>
wrote:

| --
| Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
| Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
| have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
| Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/
|

How about, no.

If you want to ask an electronics question then do so. If you want to
answer one then do so.

That would appear to cover your desire to discuss electronics.

Job done, find another project to manage.

DNA

Or, to paraphrase, get back to the future.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 07:40:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:


There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.


Simple, Just start posting some REAL design issues.

...Jim Thompson

So, ever get that I/Q thingie to work?

Lately, I'm getting sticky winding resistors. My latest revelation is
that UV curable adhesives are sticky, smelly, wimpy yucch, and tend to
poison any proper epoxy nearby. Good for tacking kluge wires, maybe,
but not much else.

The resistor I posted to a.b.s.e. a while back, manganin wire wound
bifalar on a ceramic tube, had too much transient self-heating, so a
10-amp pulse created a voltage drop that sloped up about 50 PPM in 10
milliseconds... not good enough by NMR standards. The next one will
have lower resistance and a lot more wire mass.

Oh: if you want a really low-noise, low gain instrumentation amp, damn
the milliwatts and make it yourself.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 09:56:35 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 07:40:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:


There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.


Simple, Just start posting some REAL design issues.

...Jim Thompson

So, ever get that I/Q thingie to work?

Yes. Running process-corner simulations as we speak.

[snip]

Oh: if you want a really low-noise, low gain instrumentation amp, damn
the milliwatts and make it yourself.

John

Yep!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Al]

In article <f9f4a0tjb1pvih8sgcpddj3kgql3p3ovbl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:


There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.


The off-topic threads - or the threads that haven't changed name, but
have drifted off - are easily ignored. If you want to discuss
electronic design, just do it.

Actually, sed is mostly limited by the lack of interesting input.
Given that there are hundreds of thousands of English-speaking EEs in
the world, a pitifully small number of interesting issues come up
here. EEs seem reluctant to really discuss what they're doing, and
even then they usually only provide a tiny piece of the picture, and
ask questions that are so constrained and out-of-context that they are
hard to answer.

What are you working on these days?

John

The lawyers got in the way.

I've just designed an electronic gadget that made my client really
happy. It's part of a larger entity. In lieu of payment, I get my name
on the patent and part of the proceeds if it sells. The patent lawyers
have found it patentable and are proceeding. But I can't tell anyone
about it! arggh!!!

Al

--
There's never enough time to do it right the first time.......

 

[Michael Black]

Guy Macon (http://www.guymacon.com) writes:

There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

I keep skimming the messages, but I've pretty much tuned out.

I can remember when sci.electronics was split in 1995. "Too much traffic"
they said. And then I look at all the junk here. I remember when that
happened, initially a few posts where someone decided this newsgroup was
their hangout, posting anything they want merely because they were here
rather than finding an appropriate newsgroup for it. Then others joined
in. I get the impression that it's recently got worse, because people
are responding to the junk posts, bringing their ideology to the newsgroup.

After ten years, I increasingly don't have the patience to deal with
off-topic junk. Maybe I've just been around too much, maybe it has
indeed gotten worse. This is not the only newsgroup that I've tuned out
of in recent months.

Then the issue is compounded by the cross-posting. Paul Burridge routinely
cross-posts his "I don't know what I'm doing, but at least I have simulator
software" posts to here and rec.radio.amateur.homebrew which has caused
others to do the same thing. Methinks many of his questions would fit
sci.electronics.basics better than design, but hey, he likes to hang
with the big designers. Ultimately, that is the tone of this newsgroup,
because it's gone away from being about the topic, but about a handful
of people who define the newsgroup their way. It would not be annoying
if they decided the newsgroup should be about design, even sending the
beginner questions off elsewhere, but they've decided the newsgroup
is not about electronic design, but a hangout for people who are electronic
designers.

Then, we have all the beginners who come in here, for reasons unknown,
adding to the clutter. Since I've lost interest in cross-posted messages,
I tend to not answer those. Since I've lost a lot of interest in this
newsgroup, I'm a lot less likely to see, let alone answer, beginner
questions posted here. And the worst of it is that the hot shot designers
often answer what are clearly beginner questions as if they are peers. An
answer for a beginner is ultimately very different than an answer for someone
who knows that they are doing.

Michael

 

[Richard Henry]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:f9f4a0tjb1pvih8sgcpddj3kgql3p3ovbl@4ax.com...

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:48:04 -0700, Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:


There are some here who like to have discussions about topics other
than electronics design. While I personally wish that these discussions
would be moved to a more appropriate newsgroup, It is obviously futile
for me to try to convince everyone else to agree with me on this issue,
and indeed there is no compelling reason why my preferences should
have more weight than the preferences of those who wish to discuss
other topics.

Is there a way to meet the needs of those who wish to discuss other
topics while still meeting the needs of those who, like me, wish to
discuss electronics design? I believe that there is a way to do this.


The off-topic threads - or the threads that haven't changed name, but
have drifted off - are easily ignored. If you want to discuss
electronic design, just do it.

Actually, sed is mostly limited by the lack of interesting input.
Given that there are hundreds of thousands of English-speaking EEs in
the world, a pitifully small number of interesting issues come up
here. EEs seem reluctant to really discuss what they're doing, and
even then they usually only provide a tiny piece of the picture, and
ask questions that are so constrained and out-of-context that they are
hard to answer.

What are you working on these days?

I'm installing solar-powered path lights alongside the driveway.