Re: Rules for crossposting in our FAQ

I'm not convinced. Cross-posting here without providing links to the posts on other sites doesn't intrinsically harm this site. Therefore, people who get more than very slightly annoyed by it are out of line. If I have one admonition to offer, it is that people should remain polite and helpful even if a poster doesn't mention their cross-post. If you found their post on other site, you can link to it in your comment. If you added comment on other site, you can link here to your content there. It could potentially get a little messy, but I don't think it's worth making a big deal about.

(What does irk me is when someone posts their question (or Astounding World-Saving XML-Based Last Language You'll Ever Need) on another site and then posts here not much more than a link to the other site. That kind of crap harms this site. But that is unrelated to the current thread.)

Today's latest and greatest software contains tomorrow's zero day exploits.

Comment on Re: Rules for crossposting in our FAQ Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Rules for crossposting in our FAQ by stevieb (Canon) on Oct 10, 2024 at 07:28 UTC
I'm not convinced. Cross-posting here without providing links to the posts on other sites doesn't intrinsically harm this site. Therefore, people who get more than very slightly annoyed by it are out of line. If I have one admonition to offer, it is that people should remain polite and helpful even if a poster doesn't mention their cross-post. I agree with jdporter here. I feel it very informal and cold to point someone to an FAQ entry, as opposed to personally suggesting that 'etiquette dictates that...'. If the problem persists, then by all means, let-em have it. I searched in Super Search for myself and "cross-post", and for most of those entries, I was diplomatic (like the choroba example), and I feel we should all behave that way. With the way things have been going, very few read beyond the length of a meme, so I'm certain that those who don't care definitely won't read an FAQ article anyway. Those that are serious Monks-to-be will take a personal "take this under advisement" seriously, just like they always have. Those that aren't, well, do we really want them here anyway? -stevieb	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Rules for crossposting in our FAQ
by stevieb (Canon) on Oct 10, 2024 at 07:28 UTC

I'm not convinced. Cross-posting here without providing links to the posts on other sites doesn't intrinsically harm this site. Therefore, people who get more than very slightly annoyed by it are out of line. If I have one admonition to offer, it is that people should remain polite and helpful even if a poster doesn't mention their cross-post.

I agree with jdporter here. I feel it very informal and cold to point someone to an FAQ entry, as opposed to personally suggesting that 'etiquette dictates that...'. If the problem persists, then by all means, let-em have it.

I searched in Super Search for myself and "cross-post", and for most of those entries, I was diplomatic (like the choroba example), and I feel we should all behave that way. With the way things have been going, very few read beyond the length of a meme, so I'm certain that those who don't care definitely won't read an FAQ article anyway.

Those that are serious Monks-to-be will take a personal "take this under advisement" seriously, just like they always have. Those that aren't, well, do we really want them here anyway?

-stevieb

[reply]