Hi,
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated with
Photoshop Slices.
As soon as the structure is slightly complicated, the output is broken.
I can't seem to follow the logic behind it, figuring out when the table
breaks or when it's works OK.
I searched for tutorials with examples, so far all I've found are tutorials
with cells that meet each other at corners, nothing similar to what I have.
I'm assuming if Photoshop generated it, it should be valid, but...
Please advise. Thank you.
Greg
<html>
<body>
<table width=756 border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr>
<td width=343 height=57 rowspan=2>
<img src="hdr_top_lft.gif" width=343 height=57></td>
<td width=245 height=148 rowspan=5>
<img src="hdr_truck.jpg" width=245 height=148></td>
<td width=168 height=45>
<img src="hdr_top_rght.gif" width=168 height=45></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=168 height=78 rowspan=3>
<img src="hdr_text_rght.gif" width=168 height=78></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=343 height=47>
<img src="hdr_logo.gif" width=343 height=47></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=343 height=44 rowspan=2>
<img src="hdr_bot_lft.gif" width=343 height=44></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=168 height=25>
<img src="hdr_bot_lft-07.gif" width=168 height=25></td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html> 28  6307 
"Greg Adourian" <gr**@dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:HR********************@weber.videotron.net... Hi,
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated with
Photoshop Slices.
What exactly did you expect when you generated HTML with an image creation
program?
-karl
"Greg Adourian" <gr**@dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:HR********************@weber.videotron.net... Hi,
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated with
Photoshop Slices.
What exactly did you expect when you generated HTML with an image creation
program?
-karl
All this time I assumed, I will be saving time :)
I'm back designing the table manually.
I just wanted to know what was wrong with that code, as none of the online
documention/tutorials addressed the same structure
Greg
"Karl Groves" <ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:c5**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
"Greg Adourian" <gr**@dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:HR********************@weber.videotron.net... Hi,
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated
with Photoshop Slices.
What exactly did you expect when you generated HTML with an image creation
program?
-karl
All this time I assumed, I will be saving time :)
I'm back designing the table manually.
I just wanted to know what was wrong with that code, as none of the online
documention/tutorials addressed the same structure
Greg
"Karl Groves" <ka**@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:c5**********@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
"Greg Adourian" <gr**@dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:HR********************@weber.videotron.net... Hi,
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated
with Photoshop Slices.
What exactly did you expect when you generated HTML with an image creation
program?
-karl
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?: http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post Greg Adourian wrote in message
news:HR********************@weber.videotron.net...
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code,
generated with Photoshop Slices.
Greg Adourian wrote:
All this time I assumed, I will be saving time :) I'm back designing
the table manually.
Why design with tables at all?
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
I just wanted to know what was wrong with that code, as none of the
online documention/tutorials addressed the same structure
In general, give us a url instead pasting your code in your message. But
in this case, I'm not sure what will change. Too many of us have seen
what can go wrong with image slicing and tables to put it back together
again. It is an ugly approach to coding, and it isn't much fun to hammer
it into working. Consquently, many ciwah regulars decide not to jump
into the problem at all.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?: http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post Greg Adourian wrote in message
news:HR********************@weber.videotron.net...
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code,
generated with Photoshop Slices.
Greg Adourian wrote:
All this time I assumed, I will be saving time :) I'm back designing
the table manually.
Why design with tables at all?
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
I just wanted to know what was wrong with that code, as none of the
online documention/tutorials addressed the same structure
In general, give us a url instead pasting your code in your message. But
in this case, I'm not sure what will change. Too many of us have seen
what can go wrong with image slicing and tables to put it back together
again. It is an ugly approach to coding, and it isn't much fun to hammer
it into working. Consquently, many ciwah regulars decide not to jump
into the problem at all.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
"Greg Adourian" <gr**@dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:HR********************@weber.videotron.net... Hi,
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated with
Photoshop Slices.
As soon as the structure is slightly complicated, the output is broken.
I can't seem to follow the logic behind it, figuring out when the table
breaks or when it's works OK.
That's absolutely correct. It breaks the page up into the worst mess
imaginable, leaving you dependent on Photoshop for all future
development--unless you *like* messing around directly with intricately
nested colspans and rowspans.
I searched for tutorials with examples, so far all I've found are
tutorials with cells that meet each other at corners, nothing similar to what I
have. I'm assuming if Photoshop generated it, it should be valid, but...
Valid and good are two separate concepts.
"Greg Adourian" <gr**@dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:HR********************@weber.videotron.net... Hi,
I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated with
Photoshop Slices.
As soon as the structure is slightly complicated, the output is broken.
I can't seem to follow the logic behind it, figuring out when the table
breaks or when it's works OK.
That's absolutely correct. It breaks the page up into the worst mess
imaginable, leaving you dependent on Photoshop for all future
development--unless you *like* messing around directly with intricately
nested colspans and rowspans.
I searched for tutorials with examples, so far all I've found are
tutorials with cells that meet each other at corners, nothing similar to what I
have. I'm assuming if Photoshop generated it, it should be valid, but...
Valid and good are two separate concepts.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:15:57 +0100, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote: Gosh. Brian top-posting.
That's not top-posting. That's predicating inline comment with a
forethought.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:15:57 +0100, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote: Gosh. Brian top-posting.
That's not top-posting. That's predicating inline comment with a
forethought.
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
Gosh. Brian top-posting.
Rubbish, as anyone can see by reading my post. Since the comment/link
about not top-posting is not in reply to any part of the message, it
makes no sense to put it under any text. The rest of my reply is,
according to ciwah convention, inserted below the relevant quoted bits.
message id: 10*************@corp.supernews.com
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post
Gosh. Brian top-posting.
Rubbish, as anyone can see by reading my post. Since the comment/link
about not top-posting is not in reply to any part of the message, it
makes no sense to put it under any text. The rest of my reply is,
according to ciwah convention, inserted below the relevant quoted bits.
message id: 10*************@corp.supernews.com
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
I gave up and did the table structure manually :)
I'll look into using CSS with my next project
tnx I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated
with Photoshop Slices.
As soon as the structure is slightly complicated, the output is broken.
I can't seem to follow the logic behind it, figuring out when the table
breaks or when it's works OK.
That's absolutely correct. It breaks the page up into the worst mess
imaginable, leaving you dependent on Photoshop for all future
development--unless you *like* messing around directly with intricately
nested colspans and rowspans.
I searched for tutorials with examples, so far all I've found are
tutorials with cells that meet each other at corners, nothing similar to what I
have. I'm assuming if Photoshop generated it, it should be valid, but...
Valid and good are two separate concepts.
I gave up and did the table structure manually :)
I'll look into using CSS with my next project
tnx I'm breaking my head over the following few lines of code, generated
with Photoshop Slices.
As soon as the structure is slightly complicated, the output is broken.
I can't seem to follow the logic behind it, figuring out when the table
breaks or when it's works OK.
That's absolutely correct. It breaks the page up into the worst mess
imaginable, leaving you dependent on Photoshop for all future
development--unless you *like* messing around directly with intricately
nested colspans and rowspans.
I searched for tutorials with examples, so far all I've found are
tutorials with cells that meet each other at corners, nothing similar to what I
have. I'm assuming if Photoshop generated it, it should be valid, but...
Valid and good are two separate concepts.
Apologies for not providing an URL.
I will consider your advice with my next project and look into using CSS.
It seems to me a cleaner approach.
My concern with CSS if it handled "floating tables" or stretchable cells
behavior, such as a cell that stretches horizontaly.
Thanks In general, give us a url instead pasting your code in your message. But
in this case, I'm not sure what will change. Too many of us have seen
what can go wrong with image slicing and tables to put it back together
again. It is an ugly approach to coding, and it isn't much fun to hammer
it into working. Consquently, many ciwah regulars decide not to jump
into the problem at all.
Apologies for not providing an URL.
I will consider your advice with my next project and look into using CSS.
It seems to me a cleaner approach.
My concern with CSS if it handled "floating tables" or stretchable cells
behavior, such as a cell that stretches horizontaly.
Thanks In general, give us a url instead pasting your code in your message. But
in this case, I'm not sure what will change. Too many of us have seen
what can go wrong with image slicing and tables to put it back together
again. It is an ugly approach to coding, and it isn't much fun to hammer
it into working. Consquently, many ciwah regulars decide not to jump
into the problem at all.
Neal wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:15:57 +0100, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
Gosh. Brian top-posting.
That's not top-posting. That's predicating inline comment with a
forethought.
Chuckle! I must remember that one! (I'll file it alongside "getting your
retaliation in first"). I do think it is unwise for some complaining about
top-posting to leave themselves open to such an obvious response.
I won't need it for my posts, because I use trimmed, dialogue-style,
white-spaced, posting, down to a proper sig.
But I do find this whole topic amusing. I wonder when people will accept that
it is a battle of the 20th century that will not be won in the 21st? In some
forums, and for some types of post, top-posting makes sense. A person asks a
question that perhaps needs a simple answer. They know what subject they used.
Someone top-posts a response. Anyone, especially the OP, who remembers that
post can see the answer without reading past the stuff they already know. In
fact, if the subject is a good question in its own right, it isn't even
top-posting, in a newsreader that puts the response below the subject. This is
more like email-dialogue-style, where top-posting makes more sense.
The "sociology" may defeat attempts to change, too. For example, in some
forums, the most prolific top-posters are those who provide high quality
answers to many questions. They don't want to waste any of their time, and
don't expect a long dialogue to ensue afterwards. Other top posters include
those who have little experience of the problems of tracking long dialogues &
debates, and don't see what the fuss is about. They perhaps don't expect their
stuff to get involved in such a debate.
It would be interesting to see what influence those "don't top post" responses
actually have on the overall posting styles. Does anyone know if they actually
work?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Neal wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:15:57 +0100, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
Gosh. Brian top-posting.
That's not top-posting. That's predicating inline comment with a
forethought.
Chuckle! I must remember that one! (I'll file it alongside "getting your
retaliation in first"). I do think it is unwise for some complaining about
top-posting to leave themselves open to such an obvious response.
I won't need it for my posts, because I use trimmed, dialogue-style,
white-spaced, posting, down to a proper sig.
But I do find this whole topic amusing. I wonder when people will accept that
it is a battle of the 20th century that will not be won in the 21st? In some
forums, and for some types of post, top-posting makes sense. A person asks a
question that perhaps needs a simple answer. They know what subject they used.
Someone top-posts a response. Anyone, especially the OP, who remembers that
post can see the answer without reading past the stuff they already know. In
fact, if the subject is a good question in its own right, it isn't even
top-posting, in a newsreader that puts the response below the subject. This is
more like email-dialogue-style, where top-posting makes more sense.
The "sociology" may defeat attempts to change, too. For example, in some
forums, the most prolific top-posters are those who provide high quality
answers to many questions. They don't want to waste any of their time, and
don't expect a long dialogue to ensue afterwards. Other top posters include
those who have little experience of the problems of tracking long dialogues &
debates, and don't see what the fuss is about. They perhaps don't expect their
stuff to get involved in such a debate.
It would be interesting to see what influence those "don't top post" responses
actually have on the overall posting styles. Does anyone know if they actually
work?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Greg Adourian gr**@dontspam.com wrote: Apologies for not providing an URL.
I will consider your advice with my next project and look into using CSS.
It seems to me a cleaner approach.
My concern with CSS if it handled "floating tables" or stretchable cells
behavior, such as a cell that stretches horizontaly.
css doesn't operate as a series of rows and columns in the way that tables
do...css does layout as a series of four layer boxes (content, padding,
border, margin)...trying to repeat tables techniques with css will simply
give you a headache...instead think about what the options are with a set
of boxes...and yes they can stretch or float, and in a range of ways that
a table layout can't emulate...take the design back to first principles
and build back up again from there with css layout...you'll get a far
better result and with a LOT less frustration
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Greg Adourian gr**@dontspam.com wrote: Apologies for not providing an URL.
I will consider your advice with my next project and look into using CSS.
It seems to me a cleaner approach.
My concern with CSS if it handled "floating tables" or stretchable cells
behavior, such as a cell that stretches horizontaly.
css doesn't operate as a series of rows and columns in the way that tables
do...css does layout as a series of four layer boxes (content, padding,
border, margin)...trying to repeat tables techniques with css will simply
give you a headache...instead think about what the options are with a set
of boxes...and yes they can stretch or float, and in a range of ways that
a table layout can't emulate...take the design back to first principles
and build back up again from there with css layout...you'll get a far
better result and with a LOT less frustration
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Barry Pearson ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
It would be interesting to see what influence those "don't top post" responses
actually have on the overall posting styles. Does anyone know if they actually
work?
yes
the newsgroups that have the most rigid rules on top posting tend to be
the ones where there is the most in depth discussion...for three
reasons...one is that top posting discourages ongoing debate and the
opening out of the specific to the general...another is that the people
who can't handle the normal rules of intelligent debate are discouraged
from taking part (or killfiled en masse)...finally, having to take the
time to format a post effectively with trimmed quoting, requires respect
for the other users of the newsgroup
there are newsgroups that can handle subjects that elsewhere inevitably
degenerate into flame wars...I am subscribed to two such (not counting the
ciwa* hierarchy which tends to specialise in a gentle simmer rather than
any actual flaming)...in both cases I've hardly ever known of anyone top
posting twice (and I don't killfile until the second top post)
there is a place for people who want a simple answer to a direct
question...it's either emailing the relevant technical support department,
or hiring an expert as a consultant...Usenet is a medium for open debate
--
eric - www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"to the man who only has a hammer, everything
looks like a case for hiring somebody with a decent
tool kit"
Barry Pearson ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
It would be interesting to see what influence those "don't top post" responses
actually have on the overall posting styles. Does anyone know if they actually
work?
yes
the newsgroups that have the most rigid rules on top posting tend to be
the ones where there is the most in depth discussion...for three
reasons...one is that top posting discourages ongoing debate and the
opening out of the specific to the general...another is that the people
who can't handle the normal rules of intelligent debate are discouraged
from taking part (or killfiled en masse)...finally, having to take the
time to format a post effectively with trimmed quoting, requires respect
for the other users of the newsgroup
there are newsgroups that can handle subjects that elsewhere inevitably
degenerate into flame wars...I am subscribed to two such (not counting the
ciwa* hierarchy which tends to specialise in a gentle simmer rather than
any actual flaming)...in both cases I've hardly ever known of anyone top
posting twice (and I don't killfile until the second top post)
there is a place for people who want a simple answer to a direct
question...it's either emailing the relevant technical support department,
or hiring an expert as a consultant...Usenet is a medium for open debate
--
eric - www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"to the man who only has a hammer, everything
looks like a case for hiring somebody with a decent
tool kit"
Eric Jarvis wrote: Barry Pearson ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
It would be interesting to see what influence those "don't top post"
responses actually have on the overall posting styles. Does anyone
know if they actually work?
yes
the newsgroups that have the most rigid rules on top posting tend to
be the ones where there is the most in depth discussion...for three
reasons...one is that top posting discourages ongoing debate and the
opening out of the specific to the general...another is that the
people who can't handle the normal rules of intelligent debate are
discouraged from taking part (or killfiled en masse)...finally,
having to take the time to format a post effectively with trimmed
quoting, requires respect for the other users of the newsgroup
I wasn't asking about whether use of dialogue-style posting (like this) aids
in-depth discussions. One of the reasons I use it, whatever NG I am using, is
that I don't want to inhibit this if it is relevant.
My question was whether the "don't top post" responses actually achieved
anything significant. I have a feeling (no hard evidence) that those who would
be receptive to those messages fall into dialogue-style anyway if they are
interested in extended discussions, simply because it makes sense in that
case.
Just curious - it doesn't matter a lot to me. I am always prepared to walk
away from a post if I can't make sense of it or find the bits worth responding
to.
there are newsgroups that can handle subjects that elsewhere
inevitably degenerate into flame wars...I am subscribed to two such
(not counting the ciwa* hierarchy which tends to specialise in a
gentle simmer rather than any actual flaming)...in both cases I've
hardly ever known of anyone top posting twice (and I don't killfile
until the second top post)
Chuckle! Perhaps some NGs only attract people who *are* receptive to such
messages. I admire your patience!
there is a place for people who want a simple answer to a direct
question...it's either emailing the relevant technical support
department, or hiring an expert as a consultant...Usenet is a medium
for open debate
Usenet is for whatever people want it to be. I was involved in helping to draw
up a charter for an NG, and much of it concerned people seeking help on a
particular topic. "How do I ...?" "Like this ...". It happened to be about
social security - it was not one where what you say was always possible. http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.gov.social-security.html
I also participate in the macromedia.dreamweaver NG. (Although some claim that
it is not really part of Usenet, because there is an outward-feed but no
inward-feed). In that case, many questions are "where is the XYZ feature" and
there are often simple answers. Mostly it isn't about open debate - more like
people trying to build their next website or next page.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Eric Jarvis wrote: Barry Pearson ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
It would be interesting to see what influence those "don't top post"
responses actually have on the overall posting styles. Does anyone
know if they actually work?
yes
the newsgroups that have the most rigid rules on top posting tend to
be the ones where there is the most in depth discussion...for three
reasons...one is that top posting discourages ongoing debate and the
opening out of the specific to the general...another is that the
people who can't handle the normal rules of intelligent debate are
discouraged from taking part (or killfiled en masse)...finally,
having to take the time to format a post effectively with trimmed
quoting, requires respect for the other users of the newsgroup
I wasn't asking about whether use of dialogue-style posting (like this) aids
in-depth discussions. One of the reasons I use it, whatever NG I am using, is
that I don't want to inhibit this if it is relevant.
My question was whether the "don't top post" responses actually achieved
anything significant. I have a feeling (no hard evidence) that those who would
be receptive to those messages fall into dialogue-style anyway if they are
interested in extended discussions, simply because it makes sense in that
case.
Just curious - it doesn't matter a lot to me. I am always prepared to walk
away from a post if I can't make sense of it or find the bits worth responding
to.
there are newsgroups that can handle subjects that elsewhere
inevitably degenerate into flame wars...I am subscribed to two such
(not counting the ciwa* hierarchy which tends to specialise in a
gentle simmer rather than any actual flaming)...in both cases I've
hardly ever known of anyone top posting twice (and I don't killfile
until the second top post)
Chuckle! Perhaps some NGs only attract people who *are* receptive to such
messages. I admire your patience!
there is a place for people who want a simple answer to a direct
question...it's either emailing the relevant technical support
department, or hiring an expert as a consultant...Usenet is a medium
for open debate
Usenet is for whatever people want it to be. I was involved in helping to draw
up a charter for an NG, and much of it concerned people seeking help on a
particular topic. "How do I ...?" "Like this ...". It happened to be about
social security - it was not one where what you say was always possible. http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.gov.social-security.html
I also participate in the macromedia.dreamweaver NG. (Although some claim that
it is not really part of Usenet, because there is an outward-feed but no
inward-feed). In that case, many questions are "where is the XYZ feature" and
there are often simple answers. Mostly it isn't about open debate - more like
people trying to build their next website or next page.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote: Eric Jarvis wrote: Barry Pearson ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
It would be interesting to see what influence those "don't top post"
responses actually have on the overall posting styles. Does anyone
know if they actually work?
yes
the newsgroups that have the most rigid rules on top posting tend to
be the ones where there is the most in depth discussion...for three
reasons...one is that top posting discourages ongoing debate and the
opening out of the specific to the general...another is that the
people who can't handle the normal rules of intelligent debate are
discouraged from taking part (or killfiled en masse)...finally,
having to take the time to format a post effectively with trimmed
quoting, requires respect for the other users of the newsgroup
I wasn't asking about whether use of dialogue-style posting (like this) aids
in-depth discussions. One of the reasons I use it, whatever NG I am using, is
that I don't want to inhibit this if it is relevant.
My question was whether the "don't top post" responses actually achieved
anything significant. I have a feeling (no hard evidence) that those who would
be receptive to those messages fall into dialogue-style anyway if they are
interested in extended discussions, simply because it makes sense in that
case.
Just curious - it doesn't matter a lot to me. I am always prepared to walk
away from a post if I can't make sense of it or find the bits worth responding
to.
the groups where criticising posting style is frowned on seem to me to
either have far less in depth debate or are a complete mess that it's
extremely hard to pick out any useful nuggets from...I can't say for sure
that it's cause and effect
there are newsgroups that can handle subjects that elsewhere
inevitably degenerate into flame wars...I am subscribed to two such
(not counting the ciwa* hierarchy which tends to specialise in a
gentle simmer rather than any actual flaming)...in both cases I've
hardly ever known of anyone top posting twice (and I don't killfile
until the second top post)
Chuckle! Perhaps some NGs only attract people who *are* receptive to such
messages. I admire your patience!
the trouble with keeping three different careers running in parallel is
that it's three sets of newsgroups...there is some overlap
fortunately...but I can't afford a low signal to noise ratio...so I've
learned to be very twitchy with the killfile finger :)
there is a place for people who want a simple answer to a direct
question...it's either emailing the relevant technical support
department, or hiring an expert as a consultant...Usenet is a medium
for open debate
Usenet is for whatever people want it to be. I was involved in helping to draw
up a charter for an NG, and much of it concerned people seeking help on a
particular topic. "How do I ...?" "Like this ...". It happened to be about
social security - it was not one where what you say was always possible.
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.gov.social-security.html
actually, on reflection I came up with another type of group where it
isn't appropriate...support groups...where it interferes with the primary
purpose of the group...however it should be noted that whilst I have
subscribed at times to four different support groups, I now subscribe only
to the one where I've got the "expertise" and where I look after the FAQ
site...I get better support for the other two conditions from a newsgroup
entirely unrelated to the subject that just happens to have a few fellow
sufferers, but which is fairly strict about posting style...I just get
better answers to questions there, and more detail, as well as a less
"fraught" atmosphere
I also participate in the macromedia.dreamweaver NG. (Although some claim that
it is not really part of Usenet, because there is an outward-feed but no
inward-feed). In that case, many questions are "where is the XYZ feature" and
there are often simple answers. Mostly it isn't about open debate - more like
people trying to build their next website or next page.
as you say it's not part of Usenet
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Barry Pearson ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote: Eric Jarvis wrote: Barry Pearson ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
It would be interesting to see what influence those "don't top post"
responses actually have on the overall posting styles. Does anyone
know if they actually work?
yes
the newsgroups that have the most rigid rules on top posting tend to
be the ones where there is the most in depth discussion...for three
reasons...one is that top posting discourages ongoing debate and the
opening out of the specific to the general...another is that the
people who can't handle the normal rules of intelligent debate are
discouraged from taking part (or killfiled en masse)...finally,
having to take the time to format a post effectively with trimmed
quoting, requires respect for the other users of the newsgroup
I wasn't asking about whether use of dialogue-style posting (like this) aids
in-depth discussions. One of the reasons I use it, whatever NG I am using, is
that I don't want to inhibit this if it is relevant.
My question was whether the "don't top post" responses actually achieved
anything significant. I have a feeling (no hard evidence) that those who would
be receptive to those messages fall into dialogue-style anyway if they are
interested in extended discussions, simply because it makes sense in that
case.
Just curious - it doesn't matter a lot to me. I am always prepared to walk
away from a post if I can't make sense of it or find the bits worth responding
to.
the groups where criticising posting style is frowned on seem to me to
either have far less in depth debate or are a complete mess that it's
extremely hard to pick out any useful nuggets from...I can't say for sure
that it's cause and effect
there are newsgroups that can handle subjects that elsewhere
inevitably degenerate into flame wars...I am subscribed to two such
(not counting the ciwa* hierarchy which tends to specialise in a
gentle simmer rather than any actual flaming)...in both cases I've
hardly ever known of anyone top posting twice (and I don't killfile
until the second top post)
Chuckle! Perhaps some NGs only attract people who *are* receptive to such
messages. I admire your patience!
the trouble with keeping three different careers running in parallel is
that it's three sets of newsgroups...there is some overlap
fortunately...but I can't afford a low signal to noise ratio...so I've
learned to be very twitchy with the killfile finger :)
there is a place for people who want a simple answer to a direct
question...it's either emailing the relevant technical support
department, or hiring an expert as a consultant...Usenet is a medium
for open debate
Usenet is for whatever people want it to be. I was involved in helping to draw
up a charter for an NG, and much of it concerned people seeking help on a
particular topic. "How do I ...?" "Like this ...". It happened to be about
social security - it was not one where what you say was always possible.
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.gov.social-security.html
actually, on reflection I came up with another type of group where it
isn't appropriate...support groups...where it interferes with the primary
purpose of the group...however it should be noted that whilst I have
subscribed at times to four different support groups, I now subscribe only
to the one where I've got the "expertise" and where I look after the FAQ
site...I get better support for the other two conditions from a newsgroup
entirely unrelated to the subject that just happens to have a few fellow
sufferers, but which is fairly strict about posting style...I just get
better answers to questions there, and more detail, as well as a less
"fraught" atmosphere
I also participate in the macromedia.dreamweaver NG. (Although some claim that
it is not really part of Usenet, because there is an outward-feed but no
inward-feed). In that case, many questions are "where is the XYZ feature" and
there are often simple answers. Mostly it isn't about open debate - more like
people trying to build their next website or next page.
as you say it's not part of Usenet
--
eric www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary" This discussion thread is closed Replies have been disabled for this discussion. Similar topics
19 posts
views
Thread by Logix |
last post: by
|
4 posts
views
Thread by Robert Secon |
last post: by
|
12 posts
views
Thread by plugwalsh |
last post: by
|
7 posts
views
Thread by Gawel |
last post: by
|
1 post
views
Thread by ratnakarp |
last post: by
|
7 posts
views
Thread by Matt Kruse |
last post: by
|
reply
views
Thread by simon |
last post: by
| | |
2 posts
views
Thread by gnewsgroup |
last post: by
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
