[HPFGU-Feedback] Attribution problems

[Shaun Hately]

On 22 Nov 2003 at 19:35, Dicentra spectabilis wrote:

> 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.


All right - so is HPFGU going to suddenly turn into a technicoloured group with 
lots of people using different sized texts and different coloured texts (basically 
html posting). Because an increasing number of people are now using e-mail 
programs that don't have a plain text setting (a lot of aol users, for example, are in 
this situation now) or where the plain text setting is difficult to set (way too difficult 
for the average casual user?).

I'm aware of all the problems with nested attribution and some modern e-mail 
programs - but it is an internet standard, and personally I think it can be 
reasonably expected that people on a mailing list follow the internet standards. I'm 
not saying you kick someone off automatically because they don't - there needs to 
be flexibility, IMHO - but if you don't set high standards you're never going to get 
close.

Now nested attribution may be a minor point - but I think the html issue is a 
serious one that the admins need to consider. Because more and more e-mail 
programs over the next year or so are likely to only be capable of rich 
text/html/whatever you want to call it posting. And if the admin is setting list 
policies about quoting based on the fact that they know that a lot of e-mail 
programs no longer follow the accepted practices that have evolved over time, I 
do wonder how html posts are going to be handled.

If they are allowed, I think you will lose a lot of members. If they are not allowed, 
then you're basically going to be in a situation where you're restricting a lot of 
people's options in joining.

That's a side issue for me at least - but one that I think needs to be considered for 
the purposes of consistent policy.

With regards to nested attribution the list admin already require people to format 
their replies in a particular way (at least in theory: "Hence the practice of setting 
off quotage with a label such as "HebbyElf:").

I think that's fine - but if you're going to set requirements like that, then personally 
speaking, I think they should comply with the accepted practices of e-mail. Bear in 
mind that a lot of people aren't just on HPFGU. A lot of people are on a lot of 
mailing lists. If *all* those mailing lists requiring specific posting methodologies, it 
becomes quite complex to keep them all straight - now, I don't have a problem 
with that - but my point is that HPFGU's current 'quotage' practice requires 
posters to do extra work anyway - so, personally, I think if you are going to do 
that, you may as well go all the way and require nested attribution even though 
some e-mail programs don't do it automatically. If HPFGU wasn't imposing any 
standard, I think it'd be a different matter - but it does, so I honestly think it makes 
sense for those standards to match accepted internet/e-mail practices.

Please understand - these are fairly minor points IMHO. I wouldn't raise them at 
all except we've been asked for feedback. But - well, for reasons I don't want to go 
into (it basically would require a massive essay to explain - fundamentally it's a 
visual problem) having to go back and insert names in front of paragraphs I've 
quoted etc is quite difficult for me to do (the lack of nested attribution also makes 
e-mails much, much harder for me to read as well, for the same reasons). It takes 
a significant amount of work, to the extent that it makes me wonder sometimes if 
it's worth posting. But I'll do it when I need to because it's a rule on the list. I 
realise that requiring nested attribution might require some posters to do some 
extra work - but I don't think that's unreasonable - the current system requires me 
to do considerable extra work. You do what you need to do to comply with the 
rules of a voluntary association.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at ... | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia