Attribution problems

[Dicentra spectabilis]

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at a...>
wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2003 at 1:40, Hebby Elf wrote:

> > If you could change one thing about HPfGU, what would it be?
> 
> Practically speaking - I'd like to see basic posting standards 
> enforced. What I mean by that is people being expected to quote 
> messages in a standard way - basically the way I am doing it now. The 
> message you are replying to is indented by >
> 
> The message you are replying to are replying to are indented > >
> 
> This is an internet standard - but more and more people aren't using
> it. 

Shaun is describing "nested attribution," which is indeed a very old,
established way of doing things online.  For example, in this very
message, Hebby Elf's message is set off by two angle brackets at the
beginning of the line, Shaun's with one, and mine with none
(indicating original material).

However.

Many people read and post to HPfGU from the digests or individual
e-mails.  If their e-mail applications happen to use the angle
brackets and nested attribution, they're in luck.  If they post from
Web view, they'll get the nesting, too. But many e-mail apps don't do
this any more.  Instead, they open a space above the quotage and don't
set off the quotes with angle brackets, thus:



[space for response]

-- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com "Shaun Hately" <drednort at a...> wrote:
Practically speaking - I'd like to see basic posting standards
enforced. What I mean by that is people being expected to quote
messages in a standard way - basically the way I am doing it now.



If you're using one of these types of e-mail programs at work (where
e-mail exchanges consist of short notes, not essays), you get the
original material at the top of the window so that you don't have to
scroll through miles of quotage to see what's new.  Underneath the
original material is a long trail of all the previous stuff, in
reverse chronological order.  Generally speaking, in business it's
considered good form to leave the quotage intact because you don't
have to look at it unless you want to.  It also leaves a record of the
conversation so that people can backtrack through it without having to
search their in-boxes for all of the messages in a thread.

Messages in this format show up in the pending messages queue all of
the time.  Depending on circumstances, we'll move the original
material to the bottom, label it appropriately, and send it through
(sending the writer a note of explanation), or we'll send the message
back to the writer and ask that s/he do some judicious snippage and
rearranging.  

When we send messages back, the old post won't have been set off by
the right number of brackets. (Yahoo puts one angle bracket on *all*
the message lines, except for the Elf's note at the top.)  Similarly,
when experienced list members respond from their non-bracket-adding
e-mail apps, they have to figure out how to clearly attribute the
quotage.  

Hence the practice of setting off quotage with a label such as
"HebbyElf:"  The other alternative is to manually add the angle
brackets (and some people do), but unless your e-mail program has the
same or fewer characters per line as Yahoo, you'll get those maddening
line breaks where one line is fine, the next two words long.  That's a
Yahoo characteristic: reading soft line breaks as hard, and their
Wrap/Unwrap Lines feature doesn't help.  If we knew a spell to correct
this, we'd use it even if it were Unforgivable.  (Well, *I* would.)

To further add to the confusion, many of our list members are...
well... "TechnoSquibs," who know how to respond to an e-mail, but
that's the extent of their expertise.  When we try to explain our
posting style to them, they can get awfully confused.  Sometimes they
just ignore us and do what they know, sometimes they get frustrated
and quit, sometimes they catch on.  The more experienced list members
-- especially those who have been on the Internet since Bill Gates was
in diapers -- get really frustrated with the TechnoSquibs.  To an
extent, "amateurish" use of posting software is something we'll just
have to grin and bear.  HPfGU requires participation, not technical
expertise.

It's a lot of work to get a post into good shape, and because most
other Internet sites don't give a flying gnome about format, some list
members don't see why it's important.  For every list member who
complains about poor posting format, there's another who wonders why
so many jack-booted fascists have this much free time on their hands.



KathyK:

> [I]n the last couple days there's been an 
> increase in the number of posters using the "Now Me" approach in 
> their responses rather than using their name.  This could be a cause 
> for some of the improper attributions going on lately.  

Ah, the infamous "now me".  Ironically, it's the unintended
consequence of a crackdown on bad attribution.  Because so many e-mail
apps don't add the brackets, it can be difficult to tell where the
quotage ends and the original material begins.  Someone started using
"now me" to clarify things, and other newbies followed suit.  Despite
many ADMINS begging list members to cease and desist, the habit
persists.  It's the down side of using other messages as an example.

KathyK is right: it messes up attribution because the identity of "now
me" changes as soon as someone replies.

Any suggestions on how to rid list members of this bad habit?



Susan:

> I have only been a member since earlier this year.  I have to say 
> that I was quite frustrated when I was posting on the main list as I 
> would read every post and try to emulate the older posters in the way 
> that I posted.  Unfortunately no matter how I posted, it seemed I did 
> it wrong.  I would follow the elf's instructions and lo and behold a 
> different elf would reprimand me for that way of posting.  It got so 
> frustrating that I started watching other posters who posted just 
> like I did.  Now, I do realize that I have no way of knowing if these 
> other posters received howlers or not but they continued to post the 
> same way time after time so I (possibly wrongly) assumed that they 
> were not reprimanded as I was.  I finally just gave up and decided to 
> not post anymore.  

If it's any comfort at all, I got *seven* messages bounced back to me
before I got off moderated status, each for a different infraction. 
IOW, I feel your pain.  As for Elves giving you contradictory
instructions, would you mind writing me offlist and sending me those
messages?  I'd like to see what happened.


--Dicentra, speaking in her own, unofficial capacity