What's the proper Netiquette?

It seems two groups is about the limit. Alt.politics.bush should not be one of them. ;)

Wes

B. (though most newsreaders don't call it CC:)

The technical reasoning goes like this: If you multi-post (A) to 5 groups, then your identical message gets transmitted 5 times out, and 5 times between each of tens of thousands of news servers, and is then stored 5 times on each of those servers. Crossposting (B) means the post goes out once, is transferred between servers once, stored on each server only once, and indexed to 5 different groups.

As to filters, most people don't filter based simply on whether something *is* crossposted, but on the number of groups. For instance, I don't see anything crossposted to more than 4 groups.

The "human" reasoning also falls within a wasted resources kind of paradigm. You post a question to

5 different groups. You get the absolute perfect answer on group 1. You thank the erudite expert, and your problem is solved, thread ended.

Oops. Another erudite expert answers on group 2 with the exact same answer because he doesn't follow group 1. If he'd realized he was simply repeating what had already been given, he would perhaps word things a bit differently, or maybe not even bother.

You have all kinds of people responding on 5 different groups in isolation from the other 4.

With crossposting, everyone sees what everyone else is answering.

IMHO you should crosspost because if I read all three newsgroups, and you post three seperate times, I have to read it three times. That's bad for me.

If you crosspost, I only have to read it once. That's good for me. Once I mark it read, I don't see it in the other newsgroups.

If I filter out other newsgroups, then that is also good for me because you cross-posted. I may not want to read a topic that is both (say) woodworking and metalworking.

BUT make sure the topic is relevent to each one.

But you *are* a crossposter.

Start your question with a note that you crossposted. Set a follow up to a group, so answers do get only to one group.

Keeping a X-post for the whole discussion over the groups is a no-no and then you are a bad x-poster. There should be a newbie-group answering those questions (read their FAQ).

Nick

And therefore, *bad* advice has a much better chance of being spotted by others and identified as such.

Except if the setting for their newsreader is reply to group you found message in.

Wes

Yup, that too.

But then it's not crossposting. ;-)

...also the case if the response is made via e-mail.

Just because someone down the road MAY "undo" your properly executed crosspost doesn't mean you should multipost to start.

I don't have a problem with crossposting if all groups are related. As someone said if you post separately we can't see all of the replies. Randy

Well another approach is to corsspost the question and set follow-ups to a single newsgroup. You should preface or append something like "Follow-ups to: alt.foo" toyour article.

There is no problem with that. There is a problem with some people who refuse to read or post to more than one newsgroup, regardless of the topic.

This is probably the neatest and best solution.

Best wishes,

Chris

I don't agree. Using followup-to: is worse than cross posting. If the followup is to a group I don't read, it normally irritates the shit out of me. I can't reply to the message because I don't want to reply until I've first read all the other replies. But I don't want to have to go read another group just to find the replies and read them before I post my reply. In addition, if I do reply, I have to subscribe to the other group and keep checking it to see if someone else replied to my post to see if I need to respond. So when someone sets followup-to they are forcing me to start reading a group which I have no interest in reading. If they don't think the discussion belongs in my group, they should never have posted the message in my group to start with. If I subscribe to the other group, then I would have seen it, and responded, without it being cross posted. So the cross post with follow-up to a different group is simply irrirating and pointless.

There are a few special cases where followup-to makes sense but most the time, it should not be used. If you feel the need to use it, you probably cross posted the message to groups you should never have cross posted to in the first place.

The only time I think the use of followup-to is valid is for the special case of announcements that belong in multiple groups but where the discussion is well known not to belong in multiple groups or where there should be no follow on discussion at all. For example, if you are starting a discussion about adding a new group in a hierarchy, it can make a lot of sense to post it to a large collection of groups that potentially carry traffic that might move to the new group, but then redirect all the discussion about it to a single place. In effect, you are notifying people that a discussion which could effect their group is about to start talking place elsewhere and they should come join the discussion if they are interested.

If on the other hand, you are trying to get free answers to your problems, and you cross post to 20 groups because you figure it's more likely that you will get your question answered, than if you just posted to one group, then you are just being a shellfish jerk and you shouldn't be cross posting or using followup-to. You should pick the single group which best fits the request, and not cross post. If you fail to get an answer, then after some time, try the next group. Don't just cross post to all places where you think someone that knows the answer might be hanging out.

If you are a regular contributor to a group, it's also different because your past effort to help people buys you the right to be more disruptive. SO you can get way with cross posting a simple question to multiple groups you have contributed to in the past. If you have not been a regular in a group however, you should never just use the shotgun effect to try and send your question to multiple groups either to increase the odds of an answer or simply because you are not sure of where it would best fit.

The primary usage of x-post and f'up is to move a subject to a new group with better knowledge. Say someone asks a welding-related question here that only E.L. could answer. So someone else "hijacks" that posting (citing all the question), x-posts it to sci.engr.joining.welding and sets the f'up to there. The OP has to accept that he has to join a new group. And if not, he isn't worth an answer.

Starting with an x-post is only useful when you either know that more than one field is involved or you don't know where it belongs. Well, you're right, the OP can't set the f'up properly in the second case. But that ain't an excuse for keeping the x-post all the discussion. Someone else 's gotta do that for him. Nearly never see that in the big eight.

Now who's gonna set the x-post & f'up for this subject to the right group? :-))

Nick