View Full Version : Double Posting
Is there a formal policy on double posting? In a thread of mine a while ago that some people didn't like, it was suggested it should be removed as it was a double post - it was the same issue (by a different person) as appeared on the medium format pages of photo.net (a distinction which I think means it's not 100% a double post as the audience is different, but still...) Yet before and certainly since then, it's common for people to post identical issues here and on the photo.net LF forum (and occassionally on f32.net, and less often on apug.org). Newbies especially do this, and I think if there is a policy, it should be in clear, bold letters 'Please do no post the same query here and on other forums, or you risk your post here being deleted'. I don't like seeing the same posts on several forums, maybe others don't mind. But as the issue of double posting as a bad thing has been raised, despite the inconsistent approach taken with it, I would like some clarification.<p
David A. Goldfarb
How could such a policy be practically enforced? Though many people here read several of these lists, there is no administrative connection between them. And why should such multiple postings be deleted here if they are posted elsewhere? Perhaps they should be deleted elsewhere if they are posted here. Who would decide? There is no mechanism for such coordination, and there probably shouldn't be.
cross posting was (far failry arbritary and some technical reasons) a no no on the old original usenet meassage boards.
It has been carried over by some as part of an "nettiquette" rule - usually favoured by (what we might politely call) the most organised among us.
(I recall one such person digging up some obsure "internet rules" from MIT from the early days about the maximum number of characters a signature should contain, complaining loudly about peoples overly long sigs [ quotes from Plato, Julia Robets, Sting etc] and shouting that it was the law of the internet...).
Personally I have no problem with it, and couldn't really care less. I sometimes cross post. I often see cross posting as well and most times the different groups give compeltley different sets of answers - which, of course, is usually the point. Or posted on one list and gets no answers, posted on another and gets plenty.
Please remember, while I don't like cross-posting (the correct term of course!) I was more concerned with the suggestion my own thread should be removed as it was 'sort of' a cross-post, while cross-posting otherwise seems OK. Hence, I'm asking whether there is a policy or not. I think the answer is, 'if the moderator of the moment doesn't like the topic, the excuse 'cross-posting is strongly discouraged' is wheeled out. If the moderator has no negative feelings on the subject matter, it stays.' But this is not an attack on moderators (whom I couldn't name anyway) but an effort at clarification.
What is the exact definition of a cross-post? If it has anything to do with someone asking a question that has already been asked, then I hope it will never be enforced (and for someone to suggest that within a thread itself is plain rude). While this forum has "permanent" visitors no question will ever be answered the same way. We always learn as we go, what I know today is less what I will have known tomorrow, or so I hope.
A cross-post is a post put on several different forums usually at the same time usually by the same person, with the intention it be spread as far as possible to get as many answers as possible, just in case there are people who don't read forum B, only forums A and C. (a recent post was asked at the same time on at least three different forums).
If someone chooses to post identical or similar threads on this and other sites, that's their choice. I can see this might be an inconvenience to those who participate on both sites. As an advantage, they open their question to a possibly broader audience.
So: a cross post is not an angry pole? :-) Time to make some great prints!
How inconvenient could it possibly be to simply not read a given thread?
This must have been a cross-posting within two areas of photo.net. Here, at lfphoto.info (formerly greenspun.com LF forum) there has never been any policy against posting the same question to other sites. Personally, I don't post on the photo.net LF forum and I'd prefer it if people did the same, but this is in no way an official policy.
OK. I still hope it will never be enforced here (or on any site that works on a "maximum-information" principle). I can't see how a cross-post, as defined above, can do any damage. I'm sure it might lead some people to stay more tuned to a site that provided them with more or better answers. But that's usually related to overall quality of a site in question. I've noticed an unbelievable drop in participation on photo.net's LF forum after its reinstatement here.
Thanks for the clarification. That is what was asked: I felt it had been mentioned before, yet inconsistently approached. I was not advocating an approach, although I did express an opinion at the same time.
IMHO, the cross posts between this and the lf forum on photo.net has a modicum of value in that the feedback is a graphic demonstration of the amount of differing expertise available. I still occasionally surf photo.net and I've noticed a few cross posts that nobody on photo.net has the inclination to respond to, while on this forum a bounty of opinions, experience, and theory are more often than not, mustered forth. Maybe this is an indication of a trend or something, or maybe it is just too early to tell, but clicking on the "new answers" and seeing one cross posts go unanswered while an identical question gets attention elsewhere certainly sends a message to both the cross-poster and the surfer where to go to get answers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.