Posted by kony on 12/08/05 13:42

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:08:50 +1300, GraB
<grab@whatever.co.nz> wrote:


>>In that case, why stop at 5 groups? You've been around long enough to
>>know better. :)
>
>What is your problem with that? The alternative, to find enough
>knowledgeable people to answer, would be to post individual messages
>in the separate groups.

Nope, the alternative is to post in one or two of the most
on-topic, relevant groups... particularly when the topic
isn't very specialized or obscure.

>By crossposting to multiple relevant groups
>way we all get to see the answers, if someone from another groups has
>it.

Exactly, but "all get to see" is not a positive thing.
It's an incredible amount of noise degrading the function of
any and all groups, a waste of bandwidth and strain on news
servers as well.

If you want to see information on a given topic, frequent
that specific newsgroup. It meets all goals better than
having tons of loosely related posts redundantly flooding
everywhere.

Many of the more experienced posters will not answer
messages cross-posted to too many groups, it can actually
decrease the quality of responses and you'll get people with
limited knowledge on the topic "volunteering" information
with those who know more, not reading it at all.

In short, there's a reason why there are some many separate
groups, exactly and specifically to keep posts isolated to
appropriate topics and cut down on traffic.

[Back to original message]