What is the general consensus on how to post in 98 general newsgro

Buffalo wrote:
[snip]
The norm in some groups that usually have an ever vigilant 'procedure
nazi', is to always top post and cut (snip) anything not revelant to
the reply.
So, I hope this doesn't turn into one of dem dar tings.

I can't believe that I said 'top' post , just above.
I really and truely meant 'bottom' post.
[snip]



PS: Sorry Curt and all others.

Exactly, and like Curt said a small war may start so no one is really happy
with any
way. I actually don't really care but if the group does want a particular
format
for posting in this newsgroup and the majority agrees to it then I am okay
with
that.

"Roxana" wrote:


"Dan" wrote in message
...
I know different newsgroups have different posting styles. What is the
preffered posting sytle here and why?

Have a look he
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...rch+this+group

and he
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...0b4f548a050bf0

and, in general:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...007&safe= off

Seems that one can possibly succeed at annoying just about anyone regardless
of the selected "position", so, just pick your poison and type away. :-D

Do you mean the majority that replies OR the majority that just reads?
Dave

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Exactly, and like Curt said a small war may start so no one is really
happy
with any
way. I actually don't really care but if the group does want a particular
format
for posting in this newsgroup and the majority agrees to it then I am okay
with
that.

Do you mean the majority that replies OR the majority that just reads?
Dave


"Roxana" wrote:


"Dan" wrote in message
...
I know different newsgroups have different posting styles. What is the
preffered posting sytle here and why?

Have a look he
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...rch+this+group

and he
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...0b4f548a050bf0

and, in general:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...007&safe= off

Seems that one can possibly succeed at annoying just about anyone
regardless
of the selected "position", so, just pick your poison and type away. :-D




Do you mean the majority that replies OR the majority that just reads?
Dave

"Dan" wrote in message
...
| I know different newsgroups have different posting styles. What is the
| preffered posting sytle here and why?

I'll post under the original so no-one thinks this is presented in argument
to their post.

I attempted to explain some of the new factors associated with USENET
postings and search engines to another party or parties.
In technical discussions in which something might be exposed worthy of use
by others, it MAY be instrumental to have most if not all of the prior
thread quoted. SEO experts and other parties engaged in web optimization
would actually advise inclusion of repeated keywords and phrases.
The reason for this is search related. Search engines pull phrases and
keywords for their data bases. They, being in competition with each other,
use differing styles of collection. They also try, at times, to beat the
competition by personal review of those presentations.
As these search engines and sites can not actually predict what particular
phrase, keyword, or mis-spelled search enquiry will be used, removing key
segments may completely remove valid information from the search results.

OTOH, discussions such as this one, which is what is normally found in
*chat* discussions, is the basis for the supposed *proper USENET use*
standards. As these are based purely upon opinion and really contain nothing
of technical relevance or use, cutting any or all of the prior thread really
makes no difference except to the party whom originally may have been
answered. Search engines could care less whether the discussion even exists,
except to locate potential "niche" or *special interest* search results. In
these styles of discussions, the readers generally want the shortest
possible posting, as they may have dozens of groups they monitor, waiting
for something that sparks their interest.
Their interest is how long it takes them to download and review the
postings. Long posts mean longer downloads, and more time scanning posts.
Not surprisingly, these are generally also the parties who will pop into a
discussion, post a single opinion, and never respond if responded to; or
flame someone, or start arguments just to watch what occurs.

Of course, you also run across forums and groups which have instituted
their own posting requirements. Parties whom have posted there [or read
them] may attempt to bring those *standards* to other forums believing them
as valid. Again, that is opinion.

As for where is the proper place to respond:

If whatever is being responded to can be done in one statement, then it
seems to be proper to post either top or bottom. However, when one places
dozens of sentences in response, it is generally preferred to use inline. If
individual segments require special treatment, the apparent proper
responsive technique is in-line.

But of course, this is just MY opinion, which actually means squat for this
discussion based upon other's opinions.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

BTW, the above it what would be referred to as a search engine optimized
post for search results related to opinions,,, get it...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

Usenet has been around much long that live chat discussions. Your basis for
argument crumbles....
Dave
"MEB" meb@not wrote in message
...


"Dan" wrote in message
...
| I know different newsgroups have different posting styles. What is the
| preffered posting sytle here and why?

I'll post under the original so no-one thinks this is presented in
argument
to their post.

I attempted to explain some of the new factors associated with USENET
postings and search engines to another party or parties.
In technical discussions in which something might be exposed worthy of use
by others, it MAY be instrumental to have most if not all of the prior
thread quoted. SEO experts and other parties engaged in web optimization
would actually advise inclusion of repeated keywords and phrases.
The reason for this is search related. Search engines pull phrases and
keywords for their data bases. They, being in competition with each other,
use differing styles of collection. They also try, at times, to beat the
competition by personal review of those presentations.
As these search engines and sites can not actually predict what particular
phrase, keyword, or mis-spelled search enquiry will be used, removing key
segments may completely remove valid information from the search results.

OTOH, discussions such as this one, which is what is normally found in
*chat* discussions, is the basis for the supposed *proper USENET use*
standards. As these are based purely upon opinion and really contain
nothing
of technical relevance or use, cutting any or all of the prior thread
really
makes no difference except to the party whom originally may have been
answered. Search engines could care less whether the discussion even
exists,
except to locate potential "niche" or *special interest* search results.
In
these styles of discussions, the readers generally want the shortest
possible posting, as they may have dozens of groups they monitor, waiting
for something that sparks their interest.
Their interest is how long it takes them to download and review the
postings. Long posts mean longer downloads, and more time scanning posts.
Not surprisingly, these are generally also the parties who will pop into a
discussion, post a single opinion, and never respond if responded to; or
flame someone, or start arguments just to watch what occurs.

Of course, you also run across forums and groups which have instituted
their own posting requirements. Parties whom have posted there [or read
them] may attempt to bring those *standards* to other forums believing
them
as valid. Again, that is opinion.

As for where is the proper place to respond:

If whatever is being responded to can be done in one statement, then it
seems to be proper to post either top or bottom. However, when one places
dozens of sentences in response, it is generally preferred to use inline.
If
individual segments require special treatment, the apparent proper
responsive technique is in-line.

But of course, this is just MY opinion, which actually means squat for
this
discussion based upon other's opinions.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

No, you fail to understand what the post entails,,,,, search engines,,,
most no longer use 2400 baud modems for USENET and a local BBS ...
gotta keep up.. after all the earth isn't flat or is it ...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________


"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
...
| Usenet has been around much long that live chat discussions. Your basis
for
| argument crumbles....
| Dave
| "MEB" meb@not wrote in message
| ...
|
|
| "Dan" wrote in message
| ...
| | I know different newsgroups have different posting styles. What is
the
| | preffered posting sytle here and why?
|
| I'll post under the original so no-one thinks this is presented in
| argument
| to their post.
|
| I attempted to explain some of the new factors associated with USENET
| postings and search engines to another party or parties.
| In technical discussions in which something might be exposed worthy of
use
| by others, it MAY be instrumental to have most if not all of the prior
| thread quoted. SEO experts and other parties engaged in web optimization
| would actually advise inclusion of repeated keywords and phrases.
| The reason for this is search related. Search engines pull phrases and
| keywords for their data bases. They, being in competition with each
other,
| use differing styles of collection. They also try, at times, to beat the
| competition by personal review of those presentations.
| As these search engines and sites can not actually predict what
particular
| phrase, keyword, or mis-spelled search enquiry will be used, removing
key
| segments may completely remove valid information from the search
results.
|
| OTOH, discussions such as this one, which is what is normally found in
| *chat* discussions, is the basis for the supposed *proper USENET use*
| standards. As these are based purely upon opinion and really contain
| nothing
| of technical relevance or use, cutting any or all of the prior thread
| really
| makes no difference except to the party whom originally may have been
| answered. Search engines could care less whether the discussion even
| exists,
| except to locate potential "niche" or *special interest* search results.
| In
| these styles of discussions, the readers generally want the shortest
| possible posting, as they may have dozens of groups they monitor,
waiting
| for something that sparks their interest.
| Their interest is how long it takes them to download and review the
| postings. Long posts mean longer downloads, and more time scanning
posts.
| Not surprisingly, these are generally also the parties who will pop into
a
| discussion, post a single opinion, and never respond if responded to; or
| flame someone, or start arguments just to watch what occurs.
|
| Of course, you also run across forums and groups which have instituted
| their own posting requirements. Parties whom have posted there [or read
| them] may attempt to bring those *standards* to other forums believing
| them
| as valid. Again, that is opinion.
|
| As for where is the proper place to respond:
|
| If whatever is being responded to can be done in one statement, then it
| seems to be proper to post either top or bottom. However, when one
places
| dozens of sentences in response, it is generally preferred to use
inline.
| If
| individual segments require special treatment, the apparent proper
| responsive technique is in-line.
|
| But of course, this is just MY opinion, which actually means squat for
| this
| discussion based upon other's opinions.
|
| --
| MEB
| http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| ________
|
|
|
|
|

The majority that replies of course in my opinion.

LOL! You made my day Glen!!

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

"glee" wrote in message
...
| I'll smack ya with me cane, if I could catch ya, Curt! g
| --
| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
| http://dts-l.org/
|
|
| "Curt Christianson" wrote in message
| ...
| Did they have Usenet way back then Glen? gd&rvvf
|
| --
| HTH,
| Curt
|
| Windows Support Center
| www.aumha.org
| Practically Nerded,...
| http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm
|
| "glee" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Dan" wrote in message
| | ...
| | I know different newsgroups have different posting styles. What is
the
| | preffered posting sytle here and why?
| |
| | There is no formally preferred style in the MS groups. I use at
various
| times all
| | the different methods, depending on the situation. Any "rules" that
may
| be cited in
| | response to your question are not rules but either "guidelines" or the
| personal
| | opinion of the person who makes the reply. My own personal
"preferred"
| style when
| | appropriate is inline replies.
| |
| | See here for details:
| | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
| |
| | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
| |
| | http://www.microsoft.com/communities...t/default.mspx
| | --
| | Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
| | http://dts-l.org/
| | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
| |
| |
|
|
|

Curt Christianson wrote:
| LOL! You made my day Glen!!

I'm willing to bounce an XP-machine off your head!
[:-).]

| --
| HTH,
| Curt
|
| Windows Support Center
| www.aumha.org
| Practically Nerded,...
| http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm
|
| "glee" wrote in message
| ...
|| I'll smack ya with me cane, if I could catch ya, Curt! g
|| --
|| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
|| http://dts-l.org/
||
||
|| "Curt Christianson" wrote in message
|| ...
|| Did they have Usenet way back then Glen? gd&rvvf
||
|| --
|| HTH,
|| Curt
||
|| Windows Support Center
|| www.aumha.org
|| Practically Nerded,...
|| http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm
||
|| "glee" wrote in message
|| ...
|| | "Dan" wrote in message
|| | ...
|| | I know different newsgroups have different posting styles.
|| | What is the preffered posting sytle here and why?
|| |
|| | There is no formally preferred style in the MS groups. I use at
|| | various times all the different methods, depending on the
|| | situation. Any "rules" that may be cited in response to your
|| | question are not rules but either "guidelines" or the personal
|| | opinion of the person who makes the reply. My own personal
|| | "preferred" style when appropriate is inline replies.
|| |
|| | See here for details:
|| | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
|| |
|| | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
|| |
|| | http://www.microsoft.com/communities...t/default.mspx
|| | --
|| | Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
|| | http://dts-l.org/
|| | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR