I've been seeing a message like the following in many postings in this group:
Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Oct 31, 11:49 am).
Usenet/Google Groups is useful because of the archived knowledge of all the posters. If one asks a question that others can benefit from, it seems selfish not to archive the post.
What am I missing?
-Aaron
Good to know that google is finally honoring that header.
You're missing the fact that the person answering a question has the choice of how, and if, to respond. If they choose to respond in a way that doesn't include permanant archiving of their message, that is their choice.
Would you rather they not answer at all? I don't use the no-archive header, but I fully respect the rights of those who do, to use it.
Dave Hinz
I didn't say they shouldn't do it. I was trying to understand why someone would ask or answer a technical question and not want it archived.
To me, that seems to spoil the usefullness of this group. And as to choices, I have the choice not to answer someone that uses that header.
-Aaron
Because they can choose how their answer is used. If giving them that choice means they'll answer a question they'd otherwise not answer, Usenet benefits. Some people are mightily annoyed when they learn that their usenet posts are re-listed on any number of archive sites, without their knowledge or explicit permission. Of course, once you post it, it's everywhere by nature. The no-archive header was developed to provide a "please don't do that to my posts" mechanism.
True. If you used a nwesreader other than google's web interface, you could even killfile messages that have that header, so you wouldn't see them in the first place if you wanted.
By the way, you also have the choice to include some context in your replies - google's usenet interface doesn't default to that, but you can configure it to do that. Without that context, messages posted by google users are hard to figure out what and who they're answering.
Dave Hinz
Aaron:
There could be many reasons why an individual wouldn't want Google to archive their posts. Here a just a few possibilities:
Some people despise Google and don't want to be associated in any way with them. Some people involve themselves in confrontational style posts and may not want their comments archived to be possibly used against them in future arguments. Some people seem to have a phobia of being wrong and may not want their comments archived in case their "help" or "fix" doesn't turn out to be correct. Some people argue solely for arguments sake taking either side of an argument at any given moment, and don't want their opponents to bring this behavior to light.
Given these few possibilities, I'm sure you can now infer other motives for an individual not wanting their comments archived. All posters aren't necessarily honest, rational, unbiased, or ethical.
-- BottleBob
"Dave Hinz" wrote: Because they can choose how their answer is used. (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Dave, I still don't think you have abswered akushner's question. Since I have wondered the same thing, I'll ask: What objection would motivate a poster to want his messages not to be archived?
Mainly it's paranoia. When the tag first appeared, it was a feature offered by Dejanews. Some people objected to their posts being archived against their will, so it was added to asuage them and encourage their participation.
Of course, honoring the tag is voluntary, and there are "other" usenet archival systems which pay no heed to the tag, at least insofar as archiving the posts go.
Personally, I think it's silly, and that it speaks more towards the mindset of those who are compelled to use it than anything else.
Jon
Don't worry, the Chinese Guoanbu, the Russian KGB, and our FBI all ignore the tags. If you post certain words or phrases, or frequent the right newsgroups, you will be immortalized in one of their storage archives. Count on it.
There are, perhaps, legal concerns. Now, while they wouldn't necessarily apply in all cases or even in more than a few cases, a pussycat who sits on a hot stove won't soon sit on another... or a cold one, either.
In preparing any kind of lawsuit today, lawyers routinely search for any and all postings a person may have made with an eye to using anything he may have said against him in some way.
Most of us don't worry about it, but some folks do...
Jerry
Well that certainly true, I believe a number of the posters with their "no archive" bits set may not realize it, and on some new readers it is the default setting which some users don't realize how to turn off.
Harry C.
I google everyone I interview, or anyone I interview with. In the old days, pre-spam, people posted under their own names. Now, we all use alias' such as Too_Many_Tools, Gunner, Ignoramus, or Emmo. I agree that it is silly to make a post non-archiveable if you cannot be connected to it...
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote: (clip) More than once, I had the answer for their question so their shortsightedness is hurting them (clip) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I suggest you post a response, telling them why you are holding out--otherwise they'll never know. And never change.
Their afraid the "man" is going to get them, of course I always quote their posting in my posting so its gets archived anyway (mainly to perserve the continuity of the message for long running topics)
OK, first of all, I don't use it, and never have. But, the explaination I've seen when others were asked why they do it, included things like "I don't like finding my writing on some website unrelated to anything I've ever been to". I can see their point. Do this...go to
Tons of hits, sites like dbforums.com, unix.derkeiler.com,
I tried to explain to him that it's a public medium, and once you hit 'send', there's little control over it. The only thing you can do, is to say "don't archive this", and hope that they honor the request.
That said, this isn't my cause, and I personally don't care. If I wanted my posts to go into oblivion, I wouldn't post 'em. But, you asked why people think like that, and I think I provided as much insight as I can into the reasons at least some of 'em may have. Yes, trolls and troublemakers also use it, but it's hardly unique to them, and doesn't imply any sinister intent to me.
It's always the poster's decision on how, or if, to respond.
Dave Hinz
Says the person who hides behind a pseudonym. Unbelievable. But, as I said, I'm not DEFENDING it, I'm just EXPLAINING what people have given as their reasons.
Take it up with someone else. Maybe someone who, you know, uses it. Be prepared to be scoffed at if you do so with your pseudonym, though.
Dave "pot...kettle..." Hinz
As much as I choose to.
Right, because that's exactly the same thing.
Is that a threat?
It's hard to tell in a non-verbal medium.
Not at all.
That's fine with me. I'm OK with you disagreeing with something that other people do.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.