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

Jim Thompson · May 12, 2004

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:15:04 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"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.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · May 12, 2004

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:25:13 -0700, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

[snip]

Not all users have or know how to use proper regular expression
parsers. I see no reason why we can't pick a format and stick
with it rather than making the filtering harder. I propose [OT]
(left square bracket. capital O, Capital T, right square bracket)
as the standard. [OT] and [OT]: conform to my standard, but [OT:]
does not.

[snip]

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Guy Macon · May 12, 2004

I am answering multiple posts with one reply. Anyone who
quotes the whole post without trimming should be hung by
his heels and fed a powerful laxative.

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> says...

A reader with a proper regular expression parser can handle the
filter rules without us having to set a concrete format.

Not all users have or know how to use proper regular expression
parsers. I see no reason why we can't pick a format and stick
with it rather than making the filtering harder. I propose [OT]
(left square bracket. capital O, Capital T, right square bracket)
as the standard. [OT] and [OT]: conform to my standard, but [OT:]
does not.

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> says...

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

I know of no legitimate electronic abbreviation that contains
[OT] as a substring. OT: could be a substring of "PWB ROT: SHOULD
I REMOVE THE FLUX?" or "XOR, ADD and ROT: WHICH INSTRUCTION SHOULD
I USE?" the square brackets and the capital letters make it very
unlikely to be a substring.

Daniel Haude <haude@physnet.uni-hamburg.de> says...

There is. Just look at the subject lines and read only the threads that
you're interested in.

There are many electronics discussions in threads with non-electronics
subject lines and many non-electronics discussions in threads with
electronics subject lines. A particular problem is the case of the
off-topic thread with an off-topic subject line that drifts into an
electronics discussion. Your scheme would have me miss those.

Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> says...

to messages that *do* pertain
to electronics design.

Good point. We could even do both.

Mark <mlerman@ix.netcom.com> says...

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

Another good point. [OT] addresses off-topic posts by the regulars but does
nothing about the incoming crossposts. [SED] does.

The disadvantage of the [SED] idea is that there will be some regulars who
see no need to add any sort of label, which means that someone like me who
wishes to read the posts about electronics design would have to read the
[SED] posts and the unlabeled posts. Thus [SED] alone isn't enough.

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> says...

Simple, Just start posting some REAL design issues.

That would require most or all to agree, and that isn't going to
happen. The [OT] idea only requires a few to do the adding of [OT]
and the removing of [OT] depending on whether the current discussion
is about real design issues. Everyone else will just reply as usual.

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> says...

And IME once the subthread drifts, it doesn't return.

It has been my experience that threads *do* drift back to talking
about electronics design. Maybe not the topic in the subject line,
but still electronics related.

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> says...

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.

....and here is a fine example of an off-topic thread drifting back into
a discussion of electronics. Anyone taking the "Just look at the subject
lines and read only the threads that you're interested in" advice would
have missed this. With my proposal, either John or someone replying to
John would have deleted the [OT] from the subject line, thus signaling
a topic-drift back into discussing electronics.

--
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/

Tim Auton · May 13, 2004

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.

How about proposing sci.electronics.chat?

Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

Guy Macon · May 13, 2004

Michael Black <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> says...

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.

....

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.

I think that my [OT] proposal would make the newsgroup usable for you
and for those like you. I would like to think that those who wish to
discuss other things aren't actively trying to ruin the newsgroup for
the electronics designers. So how about it, fellows? Could you please
start labeling your posts wit [OT]?

Active8 · May 13, 2004

On Wed, 12 May 2004 08:12:59 -0700, John Larkin 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

I'm planning on outfitting a cabinet once used for mobile nitrogen
tanks with a deep cycle battery/charger system. I'll relocate the
inverter there, also. Space permitting, a 12 VDC compressor and tank
will get stuck in there. Maybe run 0000 wire to the starter batt
from the portable booster...

--
Best Regards,
Mike
.... Making McGyver look like a girl scout.

Active8 · May 13, 2004

On Thu, 13 May 2004 05:21:38 +0100, Tim Auton wrote:

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.

How about proposing sci.electronics.chat?

Tim

Someone already proposed a number of subgroups in the past. It was
pretty funny too.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Active8 · May 13, 2004

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:25:13 -0700, Guy Macon wrote:

I am answering multiple posts with one reply. Anyone who
quotes the whole post without trimming should be hung by
his heels and fed a powerful laxative.

Almost like the elephant joke.

Not all users have or know how to use proper regular expression
parsers.

whatever.

I see no reason why we can't pick a format and stick
with it rather than making the filtering harder. I propose [OT]
(left square bracket. capital O, Capital T, right square bracket)
as the standard. [OT] and [OT]: conform to my standard, but [OT:]
does not.

ditto.

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> says...

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

I know of no legitimate electronic abbreviation that contains
[OT] as a substring. OT: could be a substring of "PWB ROT: SHOULD
I REMOVE THE FLUX?" or "XOR, ADD and ROT: WHICH INSTRUCTION SHOULD
I USE?" the square brackets and the capital letters make it very
unlikely to be a substring.

OT - overtone

put the colon inside the brackets.

Daniel Haude <haude@physnet.uni-hamburg.de> says...

There is. Just look at the subject lines and read only the threads that
you're interested in.

There are many electronics discussions in threads with non-electronics
subject lines and many non-electronics discussions in threads with
electronics subject lines. A particular problem is the case of the
off-topic thread with an off-topic subject line that drifts into an
electronics discussion. Your scheme would have me miss those.

Yeah, some people bring the subject on topic or back on topic and
often with a tech joke.

snip

The disadvantage of the [SED] idea is that there will be some regulars who
see no need to add any sort of label,

PIC List ahas a FAQ and you get flamed for not using proper labels.

<snip>

And IME once the subthread drifts, it doesn't return.

It has been my experience that threads *do* drift back to talking
about electronics design. Maybe not the topic in the subject line,
but still electronics related.

Yeah. And I just contradicted myself above. I forgot.

snip

thus signaling
a topic-drift back into discussing electronics.

a closed loop.

But wait... This followup went from OT to electronics, back and
forth. Should I have changed the subject line to

[still OT:] ... [SED:] ... [OT:] ..., etc?

simple solution... F#%k it.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

John Larkin · May 14, 2004

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:25:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'm finishing up the outlet wiring on the BBQ ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Wiring? We just use propane and flashlights.

John

Jim Thompson · May 14, 2004

On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:41:12 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:25:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'm finishing up the outlet wiring on the BBQ ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Wiring? We just use propane and flashlights.

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · May 14, 2004

On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:23:04 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:41:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:25:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'm finishing up the outlet wiring on the BBQ ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Wiring? We just use propane and flashlights.

John

My wife is into chafing dishes and electric skillets ;-)

See "bbq.jpg" on the S.E.D/Schematics page of my website. Basically
an outdoor kitchen ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No indoor plumbing in Arizona yet?

John

Rich Grise · May 14, 2004

"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.

Thanks,
- Win

LOL!
Rich

Rich Grise · May 14, 2004

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:5OudnWaspduH8T_dRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...

There is. Just look at the subject lines and read only the threads that
you're interested in.

There are many electronics discussions in threads with non-electronics
subject lines and many non-electronics discussions in threads with
electronics subject lines. A particular problem is the case of the
off-topic thread with an off-topic subject line that drifts into an
electronics discussion. Your scheme would have me miss those.

I look at the "from" part, and decide based on that whether it's probably
interesting, maybe dogmatic claptrap, and sometimes amusing.

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise · May 14, 2004

"Al" <no.spam@here.com> wrote in message
news:no.spam-A23214.13275212052004@news.verizon.net...

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

You mean the patent lists the Inventor as "Al"?

;-)
Rich

Jim Thompson · May 14, 2004

On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:18:57 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:23:04 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 19:41:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:25:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'm finishing up the outlet wiring on the BBQ ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Wiring? We just use propane and flashlights.

John

My wife is into chafing dishes and electric skillets ;-)

See "bbq.jpg" on the S.E.D/Schematics page of my website. Basically
an outdoor kitchen ;-)

...Jim Thompson

No indoor plumbing in Arizona yet?

John

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John S. Dyson · May 15, 2004

In article <icydnR7Tpu8cZz_dRVn-ug@speakeasy.net>,
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> writes:

Michael Black <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> says...

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.

...

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.

I think that my [OT] proposal would make the newsgroup usable for you
and for those like you. I would like to think that those who wish to
discuss other things aren't actively trying to ruin the newsgroup for
the electronics designers. So how about it, fellows? Could you please
start labeling your posts wit [OT]?

I agree -- because those who talk politics will still look for the OTs,

and those who don't want the politics can ignore the posts. (Hint,
I doubt that many of the politicos will still be able to control
themselves...) It is amazing that when I look at the silly political
threads again, they are still blathering with hatred.

So, I don't see any decrease in utility, and see a major increase in
the ability to filter (if need be.)

John

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

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Tim Auton

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Active8

Guest

Active8

Guest

Active8

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John S. Dyson

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

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

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Tim Auton

Guest

Guy Macon

Guest

Active8

Guest

Active8

Guest

Active8

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John S. Dyson

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor