Edward> Brad Knowles <BKnowles@aol.net> writes:
>> Clearly, cross-posting is a Good Thing (tm),
Edward> As a general statement, I have to disagree. The idea is a good
Edward> one, and for propagating Good Stuff like FAQs, cross-posting
Edward> is good. Beyond this specialized application, I have seen no
Edward> use for cross-posting. I don't believe I've ever seen a
Edward> spontaneous posting that really needed to be in more than one
Edward> newsgroup.
I have seen many examples of appropriately crossposted articles.
The first thing that comes to mind is:
Subject: I want to port program X to operating system Y.
(with the body asking for suggestions, input, helpful anecdotes, etc)
If I were to post such an article, I would certainly find it
appropriate to crosspost this article to (at least) the home groups of
both program X and opsys Y.
I can think of many other examples as well.
I think that an important part of what Brad meant was that
cross-posting is a Good Thing, _as_ _an_ _alternative_ _to_
multiposting, which would happen constantly if the ability to
crosspost did not exist.
Besides, a crosspost adds minimal storage and bandwidth usage compared
to the initial article. That is, it is still only transmitted once,
and is stored as a link, which uses much less resources than an
additional copy of the body of the article.
I'm with Brad on this one. I think that it is painfully obvious that
cross-posting is a Good Thing and that Usenet would be uglier and
(imagine this) even more of a resource suck if not for crossposting.
-Justin
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved