My opinion is that the use of multipost is more clear, given the new applications for crossposting. However, both are acceptable if the post is relevant and responsive. So I think inclusion of detail of what is unacceptable such as spam posting across multiple google forums, irrelevant posts to thread topic, etc., would go along way in clarifying.
On Aug 6, 9:06 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/8/6 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > Wikipedia is generally not considered a valid source for information > > because it can be changed by anyone at anytime. You may be bringing > > the validity of the group into question by potential members by using > > it. > > Given that we aren't carrying out academic research, and no lives aren't at > risk, I think Wikipedia serves just fine for a casual discussion group. :) > However, I do agree that Wikipedia is far from perfect. It's handy for > definitions, but when it comes to comparing evidence it's easily trumped by > better sources. In the case of scientific research, a peer-review article in > a reputable journal should be given more weight. I think that's pretty much > how we operate anyway, but thanks for your clarification on Wikipedia's > limitations. > > > In fact, cross posting, as in the case of twitter, uses > > multifunctional software to allow a post to show up across different > > social media accounts simultaneously, like a blog, flicker, facebook, > > google or any other platform that twitter has agreements with. This > > is only considered an annoyance when the posts are unrelated to the > > platform or purpose of the social media. Cross posting is new and > > widely accepted. > > Crossposting is as old as Usenet, Molly. Which probably makes it about the > same age as me. What you're describing is newer appropriation of the word, I > think. However, I certainly bow down to your knowledge of how to promote > one's blog, website, or indeed self, on the Internet. I'll make the > appropriate amends to the guidelines. > > > You are referring here, I think, the the practice of multi post, which > > is posting the same post over and over in different discussions, often > > in unrelated groups or threads. > > What we have is posts to Mind's Eye being made by people who also post > exactly the same thing to AvC, Epistimology, alt.philosophy, etc. So, whilst > it might be related, the posts aren't intended to open a discussion -- only > to promote something. The authors rarely hang around long enough to respond > to follow-ups. So, in this sense, the posts are "relevant", but they are > basically spam. And there's a lot of them. If I wake up and check the > moderation queue and see an enormous post from a new member, I immediately > do a search for their user name; invariably the same message is posted to > half a dozen groups and so I junk it. > > Given this clarification... is it still a multipost by your definition? > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
