in reply to Re: CC'ing Comments to Newsgroup
in thread CC'ing Comments to Newsgroup

People point to message-IDs all the time - in fact, every Usenet reply contains one or more (unless really broken software is being used). I wasn't suggesting pointing to web-based archives directly. (Although, given a message-ID, using a web-based archive to retrieve the message is a possibility).

I don't believe my approach is going to work though - but that's because I don't believe the OP's suggestion was going to work either. I only put up my suggestion so people would say "Why should I go to Usenet to answer a question?". I don't believe a significant number of people on Usenet would go elsewhere to answer a question.

People tend to pick zero, one or more forums to communicate. Many people on Perlmonks have expressed they will never go (or return) to Usenet. Many people on Usenet hate web based forums. There are Perl people that participate on Usenet groups that don't like Perlmonks. On the other hand, there are many people who already participate both on Perlmonks, and on Usenet.

So, who's going to benefit from any cross-forum scheme? Not the people participating on both forums already. It will certainly piss-off people who don't want to participate in the other forum.

I don't think it will work. Perlmonks isn't Usenet - if it was, there wouldn't be a point of having Perlmonks.

The only think that might work is if you create a decicated newsgroup, for instance, alt.perl.monk with the specific purpose of creating cross-forum traffic. Kind of similar to the NNTP-to-mailinglist gateways. But that's different from injecting Perlmonks postings into an existing newsgroup.

Perl --((8:>*

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: CC'ing Comments to Newsgroup
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Oct 11, 2005 at 14:36 UTC

    The point is not to get the Usenet people to reply on PerlMonks, I don’t think so. The point is to post the same thing in multiple venues, with ensuing discussion in each, to get wider coverage.

    Ovid posted pointers and a summary of his recent module naming question here on PerlMonks to use Perl and to the perl-xml list also – and maybe to another one or two places I don’t know about as well.

    It worked handily, I think.

    It’s all in how you go about it.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]

      That was the point exactly. Judging from the various responses, I think doing this manually as you and others have suggested is probably the best way to go, because:

      1. "Crossposts" probably won't occur often.
      2. Manual copy, paste, post is easy enough.

      Unfortunately, any mention of linking to or from this site ended up being more of a distraction to the discussion than anything else. The intent was not to simply drop a link in a message and post it. This would be irritating, and would deliver very little standalone value - both to a user browsing messages daily, and to someone searching archived posts. I also agree that practical implementation would be problematic.

      I appreciated all the responses even if a response was only a negative xp vote which is feedback of a kind, I suppose ;-) While there are individuals who prefer one forum in exclusion of any other, I am not among them. The basic idea was to find a way of propagating some goodness outside of Perlmonks borders in a way which might be useful to others who choose not to use Perlmonks for whatever reason.

      Thanks again for the feedback,

      Rob
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion