[META]信号/噪音比 - 请求比例感 [英] [META] The signal/noise ratio - a plea for a sense of proportion
问题描述
与任何新闻组一样，comp.lang.c不仅具有常规性，而且还有发布样式的
，其中许多与其他新闻共享
技术小组。这些惯例有很好的理由，这是我不想进入这里的。事实上，有时候有必要吸引人们对这些惯例的关注。
然而，我怀疑我是否完全孤独很少
厌倦了阅读包含*，完整*，投诉的消息
关于发布风格。
是的，这些约定有充分的理由。
是的，有些人太无能了 - 或者可能过于专注于他们用bc试图实现的任务' - 帮助 - 自己制定
的约定。
是的，引起他们对这些约定的注意是有意义的。
在话题性的情况下，我们被困在那里。有人必须指出它。
并且它具有Usenet的性质，有时一个偏离主题的主题将被许多人标记为
。 C''est la vie，我们和它一起生活。
但是在顶级帖子，不充分或多余的东西的情况下
引用，大脑-dead attribectomies，c1u31355-speak等等，我们必须用新闻组来堵塞新闻组，而这些文章只不过是一个非常难以实施的常识吗？
我们不会更加明智地*不要*抱怨
格式和写作风格/除非/我们*还有*有话要说关于
正在讨论的主题？
说请不要顶尖之间存在着天壤之别。并且
说请不要顶尖。好吧，你的问题是你没有用正确的方式搔痒指针 - 尝试这样做......
人们我想，他们会做他们做的事情，但我希望至少有些人能够停下来思考这个问题。如果我们对一篇文章没有任何实质性的回复
，那么说什么也不是更好，并且将风格
投诉给那些/做/有的人$
讨论的相关贡献？b $ b是的，我知道 - 如果人们不被告知，他们就不会知道。但我不是b $ b建议我们让董事会离开。我只是说我们可以通过采用这个指导方针来显着减少噪音。
就我自己而言，我试图关注这个规则已经有一段时间了，现在，我认为总的来说我已经成功了。不，我不提供
豁免许可证是愚蠢的;我不太可能回答一个问题
如果提出这个问题的人习惯于忽略惯例
因为很好的理由而存在，因为我宁愿把我的精力花在
那些足够聪明的人身上，以便认识到这些惯例的价值，
以及谁能积极回应群体动态。这不是一个合理的模型吗？
所以 - 非常请加糖 - 我们可以尝试减少一点点
噪音？
感谢收听。
< / soapbox>
-
Richard Heathfield
Usenet是一个奇怪的地方 - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
电子邮件：rjh在上面的域名（但显然放弃了www）
Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of topicality but
also of posting style, many of which are shared in common with other
technical groups. These conventions are there for excellent reasons, which
I won''t go into here. And indeed it is sometimes necessary to draw people''s
attention to those conventions.
Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a little
tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*, of complaints
about posting style.
Yes, the conventions are there for good reasons.
Yes, some people are too clueless - or perhaps too focused on the task they
are trying to achieve with clc''s help - to work out the conventions for
themselves.
Yes, it does make sense to draw their attention to those conventions.
In the case of topicality, we''re stuck there. Someone has to point it out.
And it is in the nature of Usenet that sometimes an off-topic subject will
be flagged by numerous people. C''est la vie, and we live with it.
But in the case of stuff like top-posting, inadequate or superfluous
quoting, brain-dead attribectomies, c1u31355-speak, and the like, must we
really clog up the newsgroup with articles that are nothing more than a
futile attempt to enforce common sense?
Would it not be brighter of us to *refrain* from making complaints about
formatting and writing style /unless/ we *also* have something to say about
the subject under discussion?
There''s a world of difference between saying "please don''t top-post" and
saying "please don''t top-post. Okay, your problem is that you''re not
tickling the pointer in the right way - try doing it like this..."
People will do what they do, I guess, but I hope at least some of you will
stop and think about this. If we have nothing substantive to say in reply
to an article, would it not be better to say nothing, and leave the style
complaints to those who /do/ have a relevant contribution to make to the
discussion?
Yeah, I know - if people aren''t told, they won''t know. But I''m not
suggesting we let it go by the board. I''m just saying that we could
significantly reduce the noise in here by adopting this guideline.
For my own part, I have tried to follow this rule for some considerable time
now, and I think that on the whole I''ve succeeded. And no, I''m not offering
flouters a licence to be stupid; I am much less likely to answer a question
if the person asking the question is in the habit of ignoring conventions
that exist for excellent reasons, because I''d rather expend my energy on
those who are bright enough to recognise the value of those conventions,
and who can respond positively to the group dynamic. Isn''t that a
reasonable model to work with?
So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?
Thanks for listening.
</soapbox>
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
推荐答案
Richard Heathfield写道：
Richard Heathfield wrote:
像任何新闻组一样，comp.lang.c有惯例，不仅仅是时事性，而是
还有发布风格，其中许多与其他
技术组共享。这些惯例有很好的理由，这是我不想进入这里的。事实上，有时候有必要吸引人们对这些惯例的关注。
然而，我怀疑我是否完全孤独很少
厌倦了阅读包含*，完整*，投诉的消息
关于发布风格。
是的，这些约定有充分的理由。
是的，有些人太无能了 - 或者可能过于专注于他们用bc试图实现的任务' - 帮助 - 自己制定
的约定。
是的，引起他们对这些约定的注意是有意义的。
在话题性的情况下，我们被困在那里。有人必须指出它。
并且它具有Usenet的性质，有时一个偏离主题的主题将被许多人标记为
。 C''est la vie，我们和它一起生活。
但是在顶级帖子，不充分或多余的东西的情况下
引用，大脑-dead attribectomies，c1u31355-speak等等，我们必须用新闻组来堵塞新闻组，而这些文章只不过是一个非常难以实施的常识吗？
我们不会更加明智地*不要*抱怨
格式和写作风格/除非/我们*还有*有话要说关于
正在讨论的主题？
说请不要顶尖之间存在着天壤之别。并且
说请不要顶尖。好吧，你的问题是你没有用正确的方式搔痒指针 - 尝试这样做......
人们我想，他们会做他们做的事情，但我希望至少有些人能够停下来思考这个问题。如果我们对一篇文章没有任何实质性的回复
，那么说什么也不是更好，并且将风格
投诉给那些/做/有的人$
讨论的相关贡献？b $ b是的，我知道 - 如果人们不被告知，他们就不会知道。但我不是b $ b建议我们让董事会离开。我只是说我们可以通过采用这个指导方针来显着减少噪音。
就我自己而言，我试图关注这个规则已经有一段时间了，现在，我认为总的来说我已经成功了。不，我不提供
豁免许可证是愚蠢的;我不太可能回答一个问题
如果提出这个问题的人习惯于忽略惯例
因为很好的理由而存在，因为我宁愿把我的精力花在
那些足够聪明的人身上，以便认识到这些惯例的价值，
以及谁能积极回应群体动态。这不是一个合理的模型吗？
所以 - 非常请加糖 - 我们可以尝试减少一点点
噪音？
感谢收听。
< / soapbox>
Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of topicality but
also of posting style, many of which are shared in common with other
technical groups. These conventions are there for excellent reasons, which
I won''t go into here. And indeed it is sometimes necessary to draw people''s
attention to those conventions.
Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a little
tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*, of complaints
about posting style.
Yes, the conventions are there for good reasons.
Yes, some people are too clueless - or perhaps too focused on the task they
are trying to achieve with clc''s help - to work out the conventions for
themselves.
Yes, it does make sense to draw their attention to those conventions.
In the case of topicality, we''re stuck there. Someone has to point it out.
And it is in the nature of Usenet that sometimes an off-topic subject will
be flagged by numerous people. C''est la vie, and we live with it.
But in the case of stuff like top-posting, inadequate or superfluous
quoting, brain-dead attribectomies, c1u31355-speak, and the like, must we
really clog up the newsgroup with articles that are nothing more than a
futile attempt to enforce common sense?
Would it not be brighter of us to *refrain* from making complaints about
formatting and writing style /unless/ we *also* have something to say about
the subject under discussion?
There''s a world of difference between saying "please don''t top-post" and
saying "please don''t top-post. Okay, your problem is that you''re not
tickling the pointer in the right way - try doing it like this..."
People will do what they do, I guess, but I hope at least some of you will
stop and think about this. If we have nothing substantive to say in reply
to an article, would it not be better to say nothing, and leave the style
complaints to those who /do/ have a relevant contribution to make to the
discussion?
Yeah, I know - if people aren''t told, they won''t know. But I''m not
suggesting we let it go by the board. I''m just saying that we could
significantly reduce the noise in here by adopting this guideline.
For my own part, I have tried to follow this rule for some considerable time
now, and I think that on the whole I''ve succeeded. And no, I''m not offering
flouters a licence to be stupid; I am much less likely to answer a question
if the person asking the question is in the habit of ignoring conventions
that exist for excellent reasons, because I''d rather expend my energy on
those who are bright enough to recognise the value of those conventions,
and who can respond positively to the group dynamic. Isn''t that a
reasonable model to work with?
So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a little on
the noise?
Thanks for listening.
</soapbox>
哪里是你的开标？
Where''s your opening tag?
>
-
Richard Heathfield
Usenet是一个奇怪的地方 - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
电子邮件：rjh在上面的域名（但明显放弃www）
>
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Richard Heathfield写道：
Richard Heathfield wrote:
与任何新闻组一样，comp.lang.c不仅具有约定，而且还有发布样式，其中许多是共享的与其他技术团队共同的
。这些约定适用于
优秀的理由，我不会在这里讨论。事实上，有时需要引起人们对这些惯例的关注。
然而，我怀疑我是否完全孤独
有点厌倦阅读消息，*完整*，
关于发布风格的投诉。
Like any newsgroup, comp.lang.c has conventions, not only of
topicality but also of posting style, many of which are shared in
common with other technical groups. These conventions are there for
excellent reasons, which I won''t go into here. And indeed it is
sometimes necessary to draw people''s attention to those conventions.
Nevertheless, I doubt whether I am completely alone in being just a
little tired of reading messages which consist, *in their entirety*,
of complaints about posting style.
所以 - 非常请加糖 - 我们可以尝试减少噪音吗？
So - pretty please with sugar on - can we just try to cut down a
little on the noise?
对不起，但没有。我已经设置了我的方便花花公子的段落，我将
适用于每个顶级帖子的实例我看到没有被解决
由某人其他。这就是Google员工（你知道它们的99％）
尽快得到了解决，所以没有其他人必须这样做。
我认为你的投诉没有根据。 CLC具有正确的最佳
比率之一。发布我使用的任何团体的风格，我认为这是因为我们中的一些人不愿意抱怨。关于
顶级发布，但要解释它是什么，并提供有价值的链接，它不是
合适。
坦率地说，我对此感到厌恶和厌恶。谈谈
为了让团队变得更好而获得一席之地
体验所有相关人员。我认为你离开了基地。
Brian
Sorry, but no. I''ve set up my handy-dandy stock paragraph, which I
apply to each instance of top-posting I see that hasn''t been addressed
by someone else. That''s so that the Googlers (you know it''s 99% them)
are clued in as soon as possible AND so nobody else has to do it.
I think your complaint is not well-founded. CLC has one of the best
ratios of "correct" posting style of any group I use, and I think
that''s because a few of us go out of our way to not "complain" about
top-posting but to explain what it is, and give valuable links it''s not
appropriate.
Frankly, I''m disgusted and annoyed with you about this. Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned. I think you''re way off-base.
Brian
文章< 4n ** **********@individual.net>，
默认用户< de *********** @ yahoo.comwrote：
....
In article <4n************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:
....
>坦率地说，我很反感并且厌恶你。谈谈为了让团队为所有相关人员提供更好的体验而获得一席之地。我想你离开了基地。
>Frankly, I''m disgusted and annoyed with you about this. Talk about
getting a kick in the ass for trying to make the group a better
experience for all concerned. I think you''re way off-base.
另一场小鸡战！
Another chick fight!
这篇关于[META]信号/噪音比 - 请求比例感的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
