Re: Retro Guy on Multiposting

On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 13:37:58 +0000, Retro Guy wrote:

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 17:49:33 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
>

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 13:41:18 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:53:49 +0000, David Dalton wrote:
>

On Jan 29, 2025, W.Dockery wrote
(in article<cfdac30a4d3491222db88b2e095c9c99@www.novabbs.com>):
>

David Dalton wrote:
>

NancyGene wrote:
>

Mr. Dalton appears to think that his name should appear in many

groups.

Blame
it on the moon.

Most of the groups I post to are ultra low traffic, which is partly
why I crosspost to many of them, to gather the few readers
in all of them. However I acknowledge that this group and
alt.atheism are higher traffic. But I did not intend, nor has it
happened, that the crosspost result in a flame war between
the groups. Also perhaps I should have been more careful
to gather like groups, e.g. this group, rec.arts.poems,
alt.music.lyrics, and rec.music.makers.songwriting, rather
than the crosspost I made to five groups I have been
“hanging out on” plus this group that I recently returned to.
>
I will try to be more selective in any future crossposts.

>
Hello there David, long time no see.
>
😏

>
Hi there Will.

>
And a big hi from me, too, Dr. Dalton, to both you and your wife, the
better poet (I mean, better than both of us. 😏)
>
I don't think that NG ever understood the point of crossposting, as they
(their preferred pronoun) posted on usenet only through Google groups
(which stopped allowing it before NG ever showed up). I don't think they
ever realized that posting to usenet was any different from posting on a
web forum; they did not understand that each posted message was
bandwidth travelling all over the country to multiple servers, and that
the point of crossposting was to keep it down, because they had no
conception of that ecwn happening.
>
To avoid trolls, I used to post individual copies of the same message to
different groups; but not only was that more work for me, but it was
also putting more strain on usenet itself. So I've ended up going back
to crossposting myself, at the explicit request of the NovaBBS head
honcho, RetroGuy, himself.
>
In short: there is no reason to think you have to defend, justify, or
excuse crossposting here. On the contrary, crossposting is the
reasonable default.

>
A quick note about posting the same message individually, George.
>
A while back Retro Guy wrote that this method doesn't work on Nova BBS,
repeats like that for whatever reason don't go to Usenet as a whole, but
traditional crossposts do.
>
I don't know all the technical details so hopefully Retro Guy will see
this and explain it again.

>
It's meant to be an anti-spam measure, and seems to work well at that.
Many times, spammers just paste the same message to one group after
another. This blocking helps reduce that issue. Then, by limiting the
number of groups when crossposting, you reduce the effect of a spam
flood.
>
Multiposting is also irritiating for users reading using newsreader
software. If an article is a crosspost, most newsreaders mark it as
"READ" in all the groups it is crossposted to once you read it. But
multiposted articles show up as "NEW' in each and every group they are
sent to, whether you read them in one or not.
>
Also, consider that the most popular software for Usenet distribution
(inn), keeps only one copy of an article in it's database for
crossposted articles, but must keep individiual copies for multiposted
articles. Multiposting can be a waste of disk space.

Okay here's what I was looking for, Reto Guy on "multiposting."
C.C.: George Dance