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.
Witold
simplest solutions are usually the most difficult ...
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.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks