 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Vista / General Topics / May 2008Poor quoting
This makes newsgroups hard to read especially with lots of replies. Sometimes the ">" indentation is used but sometimes they dont appear. Plain Text setting - I have this setting ticked - Indent the original Text with ">" when replying or forwarding. Below is a post from someone that is really pissed off by then : <start quote> I've been forced to read/post using google groups and everyone is blaming google for the poor post quoting going on. I'm not saying google groups is perfect, or even decent, but after looking at the the incorrectly formatted posts again, I am concluding that there are two parties to blame. It seems that any microsoft news reader, Outlook Express, Windows Mail Client, does not quote properly when replying to posts made using google groups. Some people seem to quote my (and others) posts fine, and when I check their headers, they're invariably using either google groups themselves or Mozilla Thunderbird, or some other news reader, anything but a Microsoft product. So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) but that other news readers handle fine. So to the OE users out there, if you want to be able to quote posts properly, upgrade to Thunderbird (I use it at home, it's simple and efficient), or one of the more fully featured news readers. Then again, maybe I'm wrong on this whole thing, so reply to this post to test it out. <end quote> any suggestions ? > So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that > screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) > but that other news readers handle fine. There is no International Standard for quoting. How to quote and whether to quote at all is fully the responsibility of the poster. Just 'cuz it's not automatic doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of generating a meaningful and properly quoted message. "Properly quoted" for your own specific purpose to get your point across. Not necessarily auto-quoted by some (un)intelligent algorithm. > So to the OE users out there, if you want to be able to quote posts > properly, upgrade to Thunderbird Oh geeze... I can't believe you laid out your agenda so blatantly. Whatever. > Then again, maybe I'm wrong on this whole thing, so reply to this post > to test it out. Okay. BTW, MS has dropped Outlook Express. You should keep more up to date. -Frank > BTW, MS has dropped Outlook Express. You should keep more up to date. If you checked the headers, you'd see that he was actually using Windows Mail, which is not much more than a renamed OE7. In fact, Microsoft seems to have dropped Windows Mail, as the team that made it, after introducing many new bugs that OE6 never had, was moved on to make Windows Live Mail. ss. > In fact, Microsoft seems to have dropped Windows Mail, as the team that made > it, after introducing many new bugs that OE6 never had, was moved on to make > Windows Live Mail. .........to make even more bugs? <grin> Sorry couldn't resist........ >> In fact, Microsoft seems to have dropped Windows Mail, as the team that >> made it, after introducing many new bugs that OE6 never had, was moved on >> to make Windows Live Mail. > > .........to make even more bugs? <grin> Yep. MS has made bugs out of propman, synapse syndrome and will_s. Well, okay, they were probably already bugs even before MS. LOL... -Frank >>> In fact, Microsoft seems to have dropped Windows Mail, as the team that >>> made it, after introducing many new bugs that OE6 never had, was moved [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -Frank What is this nonsense? Have you been taking lessons from your namesake? ss. >> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > BTW, MS has dropped Outlook Express. You should keep more up to date. maybe you should read the post and try some comprehension >>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > maybe you should read the post and try some comprehension There's no way I'm going to start using another newsgroup reader -- I'm using Windows Mail, which is the native reader for Vista Home Premium, and shall continue to do so. If you don't like how it lines up the carets (the name for the signs you see at the beginning of each line), I'm sorry to hear that, but that's tough. I don't know whether Outlook Express is available on the other versions of Vista, but it isn't on this one. As for Google Groups, well, I'm afraid that isn't my problem; sorry. LesleyO >If you don't like how it lines up the carets (the >name for the signs you see at the beginning of each line), They're not carets. They're greater-than's. This ^ is a caret. >>If you don't like how it lines up the carets (the >>name for the signs you see at the beginning of each line), > > They're not carets. They're greater-than's. This ^ is a caret. Hi, Wharf Rat -- I know that > is mathematically 'greater than' and < is mathematically 'less than' but thought they were also called carets. Thanks for the correction! Learn something every day. LesleyO >>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > LesleyO I wish some people in this group would grow up. There is a problem with the way newsgroups messages are been displayed . I have no idea of why this is but someone in another group is trying to figure it out so I quoted his post. I am not here to suggest Thunderbird or any other reader. I just want to know if any of the MSVP's know what is causing this and any suggestions for fixing this. Now the person who I quoted has no beef against Microsoft and has no hidden agenda. What is happening is without the ">" it is making some newsgroup threads unreadable So if someone has a solution or a reason then is would be appreciated >>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > So if someone has a solution or a reason then is would be appreciated Perhaps if you had made your *introduction* of the original post just a bit more clear, as to what you were trying to do and why, the misunderstandings wouldn't have arisen in the first place. Talk about "poor quoting"! ;) As for growing up, I'm almost 66, so if I haven't done it by now, I guess it's not going to happen -- and maybe that's a good thing. LesleyO >>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > misunderstandings wouldn't have arisen in the first place. Talk about > "poor quoting"! ;) I thought it was quite clear. It showed the problem and that I had indeed ticked the right box. > As for growing up, I'm almost 66, so if I haven't done it by now, I guess > it's not going to happen -- and maybe that's a good thing. That growing up was for so many ( along the likes of Frankster )in this group. It appears to have become a case of Microsoft lovers v Microsoft haters and you are automatically put in one of these categories. With all the replies not one has been about fixing the problem...most were just personal attacks Sad, very sad >>>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Sad, very sad Perhaps the reason for so many negative replies is people like myself that have been using these newsgroups since before there even was a "www" are sick and tired of hearing others complain about quoting etiquette. We're also sick of "Windows Mail Sucks" and "Outlook Express Sucks" and "Bill Gates Sucks" and "Use Firefox" and "Use Mozilla" and "Use Opera" and "Use Linux", ad nausea. Whatever.... I'm with LarryO... there could have been much better ways to broach this subject. The ability to clearly express yourself in your original post would have helped immensely. My original comment still stands. There is no "standard" for quoting. Additionally, no automatic quoting algorithm on the planet (or bug in one) relieves the poster of the responsibility to properly edit the message to convey their own point. Many of us grew up with BBSs that didn't even auto-quote at all. Just to clarify, now that you have expanded on your original description of the "problem", I can relate. And I also have see this phenomenon. Perhaps it's a bug in OE. Who cares? Annoying as it might be, there is still no "right" and "wrong" way to quote. Personally, I just do my best (if I'm in the mood, otherwise I don't worry about it at all). -Frank >Perhaps the reason for so many negative replies is people like myself that >have been using these newsgroups since before there even was a "www" are >[...]There is no "standard" for quoting. Ad verecundiam, eh? I'll see your unverifiable authority and raise you one of my own. "Since before the web", huh? *I've* been using Usenet since before TCP. (Well, since before news moved via TCP at any rate.) The standard and generally accepted way to post a followup article on Usenet is to include as few lines of existing text as necessary and to add your reply AFTER that included text. This is not mere convention: top posting requires you to scroll to the bottom, establish context, then return to the top, and encourages the useless inclusion of complete previous messages. >Many of us grew up with BBSs BBS's? Feh. Try BITNET. >> Many of us grew up with BBSs Didn't grow up with them but operated my own for about 6 years back in the '90's. Maximus, Fidonet and a bunch of other smaller nets whose name escape me now...too many years have past but fond memories of those days. > BBS's? Feh. Try BITNET. Both references taken from Wikipedia: BITNET BITNET was a cooperative U.S. university network founded by IBM in 1979 under the aegis of Ira Fuchs at the City University of New York (CUNY) and Greydon Freeman at Yale University. The first network link was between CUNY and Yale. BBS History A notable precursor to the public bulletin board system was Community Memory, started in 1972 in Berkeley, California, using hardwired terminals located in neighborhoods. The first public bulletin board system was developed by Ward Christensen. According to an early interview, while he was snowed in during the Great Blizzard of 1978 in Chicago, Christensen began preliminary work on the Computerized Bulletin Board System, or CBBS. CBBS went online on February 16, 1978 in Chicago, Illinois. [1] > The standard and generally accepted way to post a followup article > on Usenet is to include as few lines of existing text as > necessary and to add your reply AFTER that included text. This > is not mere convention: Yes it is. Since the invention of the threaded newsreader it is not even sensible, let alone necessary. I don't top-post simply to avoid annoying the dinosaurs.  SignatureChris Game Justify my text? I'm sorry but it has no excuse. >Since the invention of the threaded newsreader it is not even >sensible, let alone necessary. Threaded news articles have nothing to do with top or bottom posting. The existence of threading argues for minimal included text. A threaded but top posted article STILL requires the reader to scroll to the bottom, read UP, and then respond. Maybe what you need is a newsreader that opens the article at the bottom and automaticaly scrolls backwards. We could call it RPNFA. Reverse Polish News for Former AOLers. > The standard and generally accepted way to post a followup > article on Usenet is to include as few lines of existing text as > necessary and to add your reply AFTER that included text. Again, there is no "standard", as you state. And... "generally accepted" by whom? There is much controversy. Each side always consideres their own technique to be "generally accepted". > This is not mere convention: It is simply the personal preference of some. > top posting requires you to scroll to the bottom, establish context, > then return to the top, No, it doesn't always require that. Again, the responsibility of a comprehensible post is on the author. I often top post, and I often bottom post. And I sometimes post responses in-line, as in this case. Just depends on what works best for the intended purpose of your post. > and encourages the useless inclusion of complete previous messages. Yeah, just as leaving the keys in the car encourages felony auto theft. Who's really to blame? -Frank >>>>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Gates Sucks" and "Use Firefox" and "Use Mozilla" and "Use Opera" and "Use > Linux", ad nausea. Whatever.... Well ignore the messages. Your replies only serve to give these people more ammunition to fire at you and the newsgroup suffers . You are just as much to blame as these people who you despise. If you cant answer the problem or suggest a solution then kindly piss off. >>>>>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are Type and send. That's all anyone needs to know. >>>>>>>>> around) >>>>>>>>> but that other news readers handle fine. [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > much to blame as these people who you despise. If you cant answer the > problem or suggest a solution then kindly piss off. > Type and send. That's all anyone needs to know. CLIP, type and send;0) SignatureLive strong and have a nice day, - "Nil carborundum illegitimi"! Mac H E L P the planet - Don't I D L E ! ! ! Over 1600 Links at Http://MacArthur.Funknstyle.Com Pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/macarthur and http://www.flickr.com/photos/macarthur-ii/ >>>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Sad, very sad Well -- I did work on the ARPANET contract for the Alberta Research Council, so I guess that puts Frank and me in the same category in some way. (Hey, Frank, I'm LesleyO -- female -- not LarryO!) I remember quite well my first modem; I think it was all of 1200 baud and I could actually 'talk' computer problems with my C64 pals.... That was circa '83/84. Anyone who doesn't know what ARPANET is, just Wiki it. And I have finally been browbeaten by posters in various forums of the non-HTML type into bottom-posting despite the fact that MS's newsgroup reader is automatically a top-poster. So I understand very well the touchiness he describes in above. Sorry, will_s. Bow; scrape. Mea culpa in this case, definitely. 8( Obviously, Windows Mail does its thing just fine, anyway. LesleyO > Well -- I did work on the ARPANET contract for the Alberta Research > Council, so I guess that puts Frank and me in the same category in some > way. (Hey, Frank, I'm LesleyO -- female -- not LarryO!) I remember quite > well my first modem; I think it was all of 1200 baud and I could > actually 'talk' computer problems with my C64 pals.... That was circa > '83/84. I re me m ber th ose days to o <grin> >>>>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > >LesleyO Actually, the Windows Usenet client has no particular default, unless the user creates one. Originally, however, OUtlook Express always started one's reply at the top, unless he struck "CTRL-END" before beginning it, in which case, the reply would start at the bottom. The latest incarnation of Outlook Express allows one to set the default order either at the top, or the bottom, depending on his desire, in OE options. Before this, many of us used "OEQuoteFix.exe", which allowed one to change the default reply order, as well as the default signature order. Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the correct thread and article. ================================================= >>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >So if someone has a solution or a reason then is would be appreciated i've tried to explain this, but apparently, you are just intent on blaming Microsoft for all your ills, and it did not enter your consciousness (or you failed to read my post about this matter.) The difference is in the formatting of the users post. If it is formatted as Text, the ">" (or ":", or "|") before each quoted line will be there. If their post is formatted as HTML, they will NOT BE THERE. The moral of this story? NEVER POST HTML TO THE USENET. Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the correct thread and article. ================================================= >The moral of this story? NEVER POST HTML TO THE USENET. <font size=6 color=fuschia> I AGREE!!! </font> >>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > blaming Microsoft for all your ills, and it did not enter your > consciousness (or you failed to read my post about this matter.) Who is blaming MS ? You have a major problem. The post I quoted suggested that it was Google groups causing the problems. > The difference is in the formatting of the users post. If it is > formatted as Text, the ">" (or ":", or "|") before each quoted line > will be there. If their post is formatted as HTML, they will NOT BE > THERE. > > The moral of this story? NEVER POST HTML TO THE USENET. and HTML is not the problem in this case. I actually went to the vista.mail newsgroup and received an answer form a MSVP . Now he must be really an anti-ms person as he suggested there was a problem with MS Mail and suggested I try MS Live Mail which I am using to type this. >>>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >problem with MS Mail and suggested I try MS Live Mail which I am using to >type this. Then I sincerely apologize. I had assumed that Windows Mail could have been part of the problem, since the better tools of Ourlook Expres 6 were not incorporated into the new code. I keep from having such problems by using a third-party newsreader. I feel sure many others do also. But many just use Windows Mail and News, because it is installed along with the OS, as they did with Outlook Express before the release of Vista. The problem with Windows Mail and News is "Windows Mail and News" itself. It is not a full-featured Usenet newsreader, and is not intended for more than casual Usenet browsing or research. Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the correct thread and article. ================================================= >>>>>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>>>>> Oh geeze... I can't believe you laid out your agenda so blatantly. >>>>>>> Whatever. Type and send. >>>>>>>> Then again, maybe I'm wrong on this whole thing, so reply to this >>>>>>>> post [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > Please reply to the correct thread and article. > ================================================= >>>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >I wish some people in this group would grow up. There is a problem with the >way newsgroups messages are been displayed . The only "PROBLEM" is that nubies to the Usenet don't know how to use a decent newsreader. Most stand-alone newsreaders allow one to set the reply caret to what ever character they wish. I don't believe Windows Mail allows this, but I could be wrong. I do know that OUtlook Express, Forte's Agent Newsreader, and Thunderbird each allow this confiiguration change. Since I don't use Windows Mail in any way, I don't know how it handles quotes. I would assume that it handles them much the way that Outlook Express did: If your post is formatted as HTML, no caret will be added. IF your post is formatted as Text, it will be added. As long as folks postsin HTML on the Usenet, there will be such "problems." >I have no idea of why this is >but someone in another group is trying to figure it out so I quoted his >post. I am not here to suggest Thunderbird or any other reader. I just want >to know if any of the MSVP's know what is causing this and any suggestions >for fixing this. One does not need to be a "MSVP" to know the answer to this one. Anyone with lots of Usenet experience will know the answer. There is no universally-accepted convention for quoting another post in one's own. Most use the ">" sign, but not all do, and those which do usually allow this character to be exchanged for another character. >Now the person who I quoted has no beef against Microsoft and has no hidden >agenda. What is happening is without the ">" it is making some newsgroup >threads unreadable Then talk with those who continue to insist on posting to the Usenet via HTML, since that is the MAJOR fault. >So if someone has a solution or a reason then is would be appreciated Then you will appreciate this post, won't you? Since it gives the reason, as well as the way to avoid it. Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the correct thread and article. ================================================= >>>> So google groups obviously makes posts in some strange format that >>>> screws up Outlook Express (and whatever other MS products are around) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >LesleyO Just so you and others will know, LesleyO, Outlook Express is not available on any version of Vista. It has been superceeded by Windows Mail in all versions of Vista. Microsoft has also stated that they have stopped further development on OE. As with XP, only security updates willl be released in the future. NOw, on to the "carets"... OUtlook Express adds carets to each lline of quoted text if it is ASCII-formatted text, but fails to add it if an article posting is edited as HTML. I assume that Windows Mail also has this behavior. In general, Windows Mail is a very poor Usenet client. Microsoft failed to carry over the best parts of Outlook Express into the newer code. It's too bad that Windows Mail is not a knock-off of Outlook Express: Outlook Express had a decent and very configurable Boolean Filter editor. Windows Mail has extremely limited filter conditions, which do not appear to be fully Boolean, as they were in Outlook Express, and as they are now in Forte's Agent Newsreader. Google Groups (or other Web-based clients) are not true NNTP clients. Google Groups is more of an aggregator of Usenet Newsgroups. The Web client is very poor indeed, just as Microsoft's Web client is very poor. I don't really see any Web-based clients ever being developed to the degree that stand-alone clients have been developed. And for a simple reason: While JavaScript and HTML are very rich, they are just not fast enough for normal Usenet operations. Web-based readers are just no substitute for a decent Windows-based NNTP client. Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the correct thread and article. ================================================= |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.