By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
458,187 Members | 1,629 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 458,187 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

New ASP.NET 2.0 Terminology: "CROSSPOST" is a very BAD name to use

P: n/a
Dear Microsoft:

In your new ASP.NET 2.0 page model of being able to crosspost to another
page, it would seem that if you were to type that word in Google,
"crosspost" or "cross post", you will get endless amount of results from the
newsgroup police complaining about posters cross posting to many newsgroups
as this very message is doing.

So to those at Microsoft, and since posting your form results to another
page is very very important in a web site, and probably a big big part of
why .NET is so difficult, I recommend you find a better name than "cross
post".

Otherwise, when you do that Google or Yahoo search for "cross post" when
trying to learn how to post to another page, you will get endless results
from the newsgroup police. There is no let up in the newsgroup police
complaining about cross posting, so don't think when ASP.NET comes out
Google or whatever will be able to tell the difference as the "cross
posting" complaints are never ending and are always current. If you do that
in newsgroups or in the Web, you will also get the same etiquette complaints
or web pages as well.

You, Microsoft, are essentially choosing the exact same name as the
newgroups police do in their complaints and will only confuse people more.

Perhaps, you should using something on the lines of the "Post Back"
name....how about "Post Forward"? or something of the like...but definately
NOT the word, "cross post".
Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
8 Replies


P: n/a
I have to agree that verbiage is not well thought out.
--
<%= Clinton Gallagher
A/E/C Consulting, Web Design, e-Commerce Software Development
Wauwatosa, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin USA
NET cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/

"anon" <an**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Dear Microsoft:

In your new ASP.NET 2.0 page model of being able to crosspost to another
page, it would seem that if you were to type that word in Google,
"crosspost" or "cross post", you will get endless amount of results from the newsgroup police complaining about posters cross posting to many newsgroups as this very message is doing.

So to those at Microsoft, and since posting your form results to another
page is very very important in a web site, and probably a big big part of
why .NET is so difficult, I recommend you find a better name than "cross
post".

Otherwise, when you do that Google or Yahoo search for "cross post" when
trying to learn how to post to another page, you will get endless results
from the newsgroup police. There is no let up in the newsgroup police
complaining about cross posting, so don't think when ASP.NET comes out
Google or whatever will be able to tell the difference as the "cross
posting" complaints are never ending and are always current. If you do that in newsgroups or in the Web, you will also get the same etiquette complaints or web pages as well.

You, Microsoft, are essentially choosing the exact same name as the
newgroups police do in their complaints and will only confuse people more.

Perhaps, you should using something on the lines of the "Post Back"
name....how about "Post Forward"? or something of the like...but definately NOT the word, "cross post".

Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
Don't cross post to so many groups! (oops, added to the FUD) ;->

While the idea certainly has merit, consider filtering to the ASP.NET group
and you will get fewer responses than dotnet alone. It is difficult to go to
another page in ASP.NET using the built in crud ... until Whidbey. You can
still use the same methodology as old ASP (ie, pull from the Response
object), but you lose some of the benefits. ViewState is another
possibility, as it is passed to the new page. Watch the ViewStateMac
settings, as it has to follow exact encoding, or you will get ViewState
corrupt.

NOTE: Yes, it is a pain. Much better in Whidbey.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************** ********************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************** ********************
"anon" <an**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Dear Microsoft:

In your new ASP.NET 2.0 page model of being able to crosspost to another
page, it would seem that if you were to type that word in Google,
"crosspost" or "cross post", you will get endless amount of results from the newsgroup police complaining about posters cross posting to many newsgroups as this very message is doing.

So to those at Microsoft, and since posting your form results to another
page is very very important in a web site, and probably a big big part of
why .NET is so difficult, I recommend you find a better name than "cross
post".

Otherwise, when you do that Google or Yahoo search for "cross post" when
trying to learn how to post to another page, you will get endless results
from the newsgroup police. There is no let up in the newsgroup police
complaining about cross posting, so don't think when ASP.NET comes out
Google or whatever will be able to tell the difference as the "cross
posting" complaints are never ending and are always current. If you do that in newsgroups or in the Web, you will also get the same etiquette complaints or web pages as well.

You, Microsoft, are essentially choosing the exact same name as the
newgroups police do in their complaints and will only confuse people more.

Perhaps, you should using something on the lines of the "Post Back"
name....how about "Post Forward"? or something of the like...but definately NOT the word, "cross post".

Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
see what I mean....all you get in the search results is those from the
newsgroup police....


"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Don't cross post to so many groups! (oops, added to the FUD) ;->

While the idea certainly has merit, consider filtering to the ASP.NET group and you will get fewer responses than dotnet alone. It is difficult to go to another page in ASP.NET using the built in crud ... until Whidbey. You can
still use the same methodology as old ASP (ie, pull from the Response
object), but you lose some of the benefits. ViewState is another
possibility, as it is passed to the new page. Watch the ViewStateMac
settings, as it has to follow exact encoding, or you will get ViewState
corrupt.

NOTE: Yes, it is a pain. Much better in Whidbey.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************** ********************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************** ********************
"anon" <an**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Dear Microsoft:

In your new ASP.NET 2.0 page model of being able to crosspost to another
page, it would seem that if you were to type that word in Google,
"crosspost" or "cross post", you will get endless amount of results from

the
newsgroup police complaining about posters cross posting to many

newsgroups
as this very message is doing.

So to those at Microsoft, and since posting your form results to another
page is very very important in a web site, and probably a big big part of why .NET is so difficult, I recommend you find a better name than "cross
post".

Otherwise, when you do that Google or Yahoo search for "cross post" when
trying to learn how to post to another page, you will get endless results from the newsgroup police. There is no let up in the newsgroup police
complaining about cross posting, so don't think when ASP.NET comes out
Google or whatever will be able to tell the difference as the "cross
posting" complaints are never ending and are always current. If you do

that
in newsgroups or in the Web, you will also get the same etiquette

complaints
or web pages as well.

You, Microsoft, are essentially choosing the exact same name as the
newgroups police do in their complaints and will only confuse people more.
Perhaps, you should using something on the lines of the "Post Back"
name....how about "Post Forward"? or something of the like...but

definately
NOT the word, "cross post".


Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
Cor
Hi Anon,

This written from the dotnet.languages.vb newsgroup,
Some of us active in this newsgroup are so happy in this newsgroup that we
do not have anymore a newsgroup police.

Please do not activate them again?
:-))

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
Old Netiquettte Principle: Crossposting to newsgroups is a very BAD practice
to use

--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
Big things are made up
of lots of little things.

"anon" <an**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Dear Microsoft:

In your new ASP.NET 2.0 page model of being able to crosspost to another
page, it would seem that if you were to type that word in Google,
"crosspost" or "cross post", you will get endless amount of results from the newsgroup police complaining about posters cross posting to many newsgroups as this very message is doing.

So to those at Microsoft, and since posting your form results to another
page is very very important in a web site, and probably a big big part of
why .NET is so difficult, I recommend you find a better name than "cross
post".

Otherwise, when you do that Google or Yahoo search for "cross post" when
trying to learn how to post to another page, you will get endless results
from the newsgroup police. There is no let up in the newsgroup police
complaining about cross posting, so don't think when ASP.NET comes out
Google or whatever will be able to tell the difference as the "cross
posting" complaints are never ending and are always current. If you do that in newsgroups or in the Web, you will also get the same etiquette complaints or web pages as well.

You, Microsoft, are essentially choosing the exact same name as the
newgroups police do in their complaints and will only confuse people more.

Perhaps, you should using something on the lines of the "Post Back"
name....how about "Post Forward"? or something of the like...but definately NOT the word, "cross post".

Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
I hope Microsoft sees what can happen if someone crossposts question about
crossposting..... ha ha ha ha
"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:eE**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@takempis.com> schrieb
Old Netiquettte Principle: Crossposting to newsgroups is a very BAD
practice to use


IMO crossposting is ok unless posted to the wrong groups. Multiposting is
bad practice.

--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@takempis.com> schrieb
Old Netiquettte Principle: Crossposting to newsgroups is a very BAD
practice to use


IMO crossposting is ok unless posted to the wrong groups. Multiposting is
bad practice.

--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
If use "back and forth", it matches the "back" and "forward" buttons on
Internet Explorer and all the other browsers anyway.

Crossposting and any variation of it will cause the same amount of confusion
like C# did to the job boards and users shouldn't have to wait 3 years for
the search engines to be modified to look for that # anyway and thus the
same for cross posting.

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Don't cross post to so many groups! (oops, added to the FUD) ;->

While the idea certainly has merit, consider filtering to the ASP.NET group and you will get fewer responses than dotnet alone. It is difficult to go to another page in ASP.NET using the built in crud ... until Whidbey. You can
still use the same methodology as old ASP (ie, pull from the Response
object), but you lose some of the benefits. ViewState is another
possibility, as it is passed to the new page. Watch the ViewStateMac
settings, as it has to follow exact encoding, or you will get ViewState
corrupt.

NOTE: Yes, it is a pain. Much better in Whidbey.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************** ********************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************** ********************
"anon" <an**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Dear Microsoft:

In your new ASP.NET 2.0 page model of being able to crosspost to another
page, it would seem that if you were to type that word in Google,
"crosspost" or "cross post", you will get endless amount of results from

the
newsgroup police complaining about posters cross posting to many

newsgroups
as this very message is doing.

So to those at Microsoft, and since posting your form results to another
page is very very important in a web site, and probably a big big part of why .NET is so difficult, I recommend you find a better name than "cross
post".

Otherwise, when you do that Google or Yahoo search for "cross post" when
trying to learn how to post to another page, you will get endless results from the newsgroup police. There is no let up in the newsgroup police
complaining about cross posting, so don't think when ASP.NET comes out
Google or whatever will be able to tell the difference as the "cross
posting" complaints are never ending and are always current. If you do

that
in newsgroups or in the Web, you will also get the same etiquette

complaints
or web pages as well.

You, Microsoft, are essentially choosing the exact same name as the
newgroups police do in their complaints and will only confuse people more.
Perhaps, you should using something on the lines of the "Post Back"
name....how about "Post Forward"? or something of the like...but

definately
NOT the word, "cross post".


Jul 21 '05 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.