I don't take the time to help anybody
[mod note: an apparent paraphrase from GMF #16964]

If everyone felt that way this particular group wouldn't exist. That isn't a very friendly attitude and I find it kind of extreme but not especially unusual. Owners/moderators who are cantankerous and unfriendly has always seemed to me to be the down side of these groups. They don't like dealing with members and guess what? Members usually don't like dealing with them, either.

I am willing to take a few minutes to help one of the members of the groups I own/moderate. That would seem to be one of the main reasons for being a moderator; a willingness to get involved and being willing to help someone. It usually doesn't take much effort.

tommy0421

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 07:13 AM, Tommy Meehan wrote:

I don't take the time to help anybody

That statement was made in a very specific context, which you have chosen to ignore.

There are a great many who take the entirely reasonable position that if I've provided you with the information you're asking for, and you haven't bothered to even read it, that additional assistance is not indicated.? I will help by pointing out that the member has an obligation to actually do that reading, and that's really the best help I can give them.

Context matters.
?
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

开云体育

Hi
--

---

/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki

/static/help
More help: use the search button at the top of the Messages list.

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 05:44 PM, Frances wrote:

I like to help edit the GMF wiki. I can point people to it or specific spots when they have a problem.

As do I. However, I get irked when members (not of GMF!) seem incapable of the most basic of functions, and / or don't even consult their own group's wiki. On occasions - admittedly fairly rare - when given specific guidance they still manage to get it wrong.

A perpetual problem on many (most?) groups seems to be a failure, appearing on occasions to be a blank refusal, to trim off reams of previous material so that the vast bulk of any post is yet another copy of what has been sent before. On a moderated group this can be caught by a moderator (although repeatedly having to trim peoples' posts does get tedious) but on an unmoderated group, although a moderator may edit a post to remove superflous material on the web UI, an over - long email has already been sent to members, very possibly eroding their data allowances.

Why is it some people are apparently incapable of selective quoting when posting by email? Is it a lack of capability or simple laziness?

Chris

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 07:43 AM, Chris Jones wrote:

Why is it some people are apparently incapable of selective quoting when posting by email? Is it a lack of capability or simple laziness?

As to the second question, I'd say Yes! ;>)? Many people now days are trying to use something other than a full computer to reply and many of those devices make it difficult to select/trim/edit a reply.? Others are too lazy to spend a few seconds removing unneeded material or aren't aware that their email program is set up to include the entire message, including any previous replies, that they're replying to.

I think part of the 'problem' is that much of the world, especially the US, has 'unlimited' bandwidth available in many areas, so people feel this common courtesy is no longer necessary.? In a way, I feel lucky to NOT have unlimited internet access, so I tend to think about the results of my actions.

Duane
--
Help: /static/help
GMF's Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Search button at the top of Messages list
A few site FAQs: /static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 08:43 AM, Chris Jones wrote:

Why is it some people are apparently incapable of selective quoting when posting by email? Is it a lack of capability or simple laziness?

Both, sometimes in combination, sometimes not.? ?But it mostly comes because netiquette is not being passed down and much of it not being passed down is because there's an attitude that enforcing it "is mean" or you get called power mad (or worse) if you insist upon it.

Most of us learn by example and none of us is born knowing how to use e-mail or the internet.? But these days, unless you're lucky enough to somehow land in a venue where selective quoting is expected, and complete removal of any quoted material is expected as well when it's not needed to preserve context, what you're likely to see is "leave it all at the bottom of the message and add whatever I have to say at the top."? You learn that the lowest common denominator is acceptable.

It's sloppy, it makes searching for information maddening, and, sadly, it's not going to stop at any time in the near future, if ever.? ?That ship has sailed . . .
?
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:00 AM, Duane wrote:

I think part of the 'problem' is that much of the world, especially the US, has 'unlimited' bandwidth available in many areas, so people feel this common courtesy is no longer necessary.? In a way, I feel lucky to NOT have unlimited internet access, so I tend to think about the results of my actions.

I don't think that what both of us know to be correct netiquette with regard to quotation trimming has been driven by bandwidth for decades now, anywhere.? ?The amount of data in a plain text message or HTML e-mail is negligible by any standard.

It is, or should be, common courtesy to care about your readership being able to read whatever you send easily, and without any extraneous garbage.? That, in and of itself, means that taking a second or two to do a "select all" (even on a mobile device) and erasing everything before replying should be standard practice when context is preserved without it.

It does get much messier, though, as far as trying to do a lengthy point-by-point response using a mobile device, which is one reason I just don't.? I tend to avoid using a mobile device for anything other than reading or moderating, since ease of creation of text requires a keyboard as far as I'm concerned (and that's even with speech-to-text technology - which we've all seen the limitations of).

?
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

Whilst I agree with most of what you say in your second paragraph, Chris, there is the other side.? I've seen several messages on this group which are incomprehensible without knowing to which message the writer is replying.? So to include the latest letter in the series is helpful to those who have not maybe been following the trend.? This letter might be an example....

FWIW IMHO,
Peter

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 05:44 PM, Frances wrote:

I like to help edit the GMF wiki. I can point people to it or specific spots when they have a problem.

As do I. However, I get irked when members (not of GMF!) seem incapable of the most basic of functions, and / or don't even consult their own group's wiki. On occasions - admittedly fairly rare - when given specific guidance they still manage to get it wrong.

A perpetual problem on many (most?) groups seems to be a failure, appearing on occasions to be a blank refusal, to trim off reams of previous material so that the vast bulk of any post is yet another copy of what has been sent before. On a moderated group this can be caught by a moderator (although repeatedly having to trim peoples' posts does get tedious) but on an unmoderated group, although a moderator may edit a post to remove superflous material on the web UI, an over - long email has already been sent to members, very possibly eroding their data allowances.

Why is it some people are apparently incapable of selective quoting when posting by email? Is it a lack of capability or simple laziness?

Chris