Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #71666 > unrolled thread

Topicality

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Topicality Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-03 08:02 -0700
    Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 08:43 -0700
      Re: Topicality Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-03 17:04 +0100
        Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:31 -0700
          Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:36 -0700
            Re: Topicality "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:40 -0700
              Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:52 -0700
                Re: Topicality "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:17 -0700
                  Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:28 -0700
                    Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:40 -0700
                      Re: Topicality "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 10:57 -0700
        Re: Topicality Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-03 12:47 -0700
    Re: Topicality glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 05:26 +0000
      Re: Topicality fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 01:42 -0700
    Re: Topicality Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 14:48 -0700
      Re: Topicality Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-04 18:06 -0700
      Re: Topicality glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-05 05:09 +0000
      Re: Topicality Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-06 08:26 -0700
    Re: Topicality Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-06 18:34 +0200

#71666 — Topicality

I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
but I couldn't think of a better one.

It seems like there has been a big change in newsgroup postings
over, oh, maybe the last six to twelve months.  I don't mean
newsgroups in general, just comp.lang.c.  The change I'm talking
about is an increase in number, size, and proportion, of content,
postings, and threads that have little or no relationship to the
C language, which is ostensibly what comp.lang.c is for.

I find this trend, to put it mildly, pretty disappointing.  I
expect it affects my reading more than it does that of many or
most other people, partly because as a matter of principle I
don't use killfiles.  (I don't want to get into why, just noting
the fact of it.)  The effect is big.  To me it seems (without
having done any objective measurement) that the "signal-to-noise"
ratio is now less than one.  One way or another I think something
has to change, either a return to a more focused set of content,
or some kind of change in how I participate in the newsgroup.

I have in the past resisted trying to define what constitutes a
"topical" posting.  In particular I don't think it's helpful to
call something "on topic" or "off topic".  However I would like
now to suggest a guideline:  if what you're writing is not
directly and primarily about the C language, ask yourself the
question "What percentage of comp.lang.c's nominal audience is
interested in reading this?"  If the answer is less than about
10% then a good rule of thumb is it shouldn't be posted.  What is
probably more important is to weigh the size of the material in
question, not just in the current posting but how much is likely
to be produced in response.  The larger the size, the higher the
threshold should be for what audience percentage is interested to
read it.

As for myself, I'm not sure how I might change my participation
in the group to offset the effects of such postings.  However, I
can say one thing, which is I resolve to be more strict in my own
behavior to avoid material that is not directly and primarily
about the C language, and considering both my own comments and
any other such comments likely to be generated as a result.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#71668

W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 17:02:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Tim Rentsch napisał:
> I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
> but I couldn't think of a better one.
> 
> It seems like there has been a big change in newsgroup postings
> over, oh, maybe the last six to twelve months.  I don't mean
> newsgroups in general, just comp.lang.c.  The change I'm talking
> about is an increase in number, size, and proportion, of content,
> postings, and threads that have little or no relationship to the
> C language, which is ostensibly what comp.lang.c is for.
> 
> I find this trend, to put it mildly, pretty disappointing.  I
> expect it affects my reading more than it does that of many or
> most other people, partly because as a matter of principle I
> don't use killfiles.  (I don't want to get into why, just noting
> the fact of it.)  The effect is big.  To me it seems (without
> having done any objective measurement) that the "signal-to-noise"
> ratio is now less than one.  One way or another I think something
> has to change, either a return to a more focused set of content,
> or some kind of change in how I participate in the newsgroup.
> 
> I have in the past resisted trying to define what constitutes a
> "topical" posting.  In particular I don't think it's helpful to
> call something "on topic" or "off topic".  However I would like
> now to suggest a guideline:  if what you're writing is not
> directly and primarily about the C language, ask yourself the
> question "What percentage of comp.lang.c's nominal audience is
> interested in reading this?"  If the answer is less than about
> 10% then a good rule of thumb is it shouldn't be posted.  What is
> probably more important is to weigh the size of the material in
> question, not just in the current posting but how much is likely
> to be produced in response.  The larger the size, the higher the
> threshold should be for what audience percentage is interested to
> read it.
> 
> As for myself, I'm not sure how I might change my participation
> in the group to offset the effects of such postings.  However, I
> can say one thing, which is I resolve to be more strict in my own
> behavior to avoid material that is not directly and primarily
> about the C language, and considering both my own comments and
> any other such comments likely to be generated as a result.

i got quite opposite complain, too much boring standards, not enough real c coding of 'something' (and discussion on it)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71671

On 03/10/2015 16:43, fir wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 17:02:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Tim Rentsch napisał:

>> It seems like there has been a big change in newsgroup postings
>> over, oh, maybe the last six to twelve months.  I don't mean
>> newsgroups in general, just comp.lang.c.  The change I'm talking
>> about is an increase in number, size, and proportion, of content,
>> postings, and threads that have little or no relationship to the
>> C language, which is ostensibly what comp.lang.c is for.

> i got quite opposite complain, too much boring standards, not enough real c coding of 'something' (and discussion on it)

Why can't the group be for everyone? Including discussing Standards 
minutiae if that's what some people want (but I agree it isn't very 
interesting). You don't need to take part in those discussions.

I come here as a diverting break from whatever else I might be doing, 
now that I seem to know too much C, for the purposes I use it for, to 
ask questions about it.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71676

W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 18:04:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Bart napisał:
> On 03/10/2015 16:43, fir wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 17:02:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Tim Rentsch napisał:
> 
> >> It seems like there has been a big change in newsgroup postings
> >> over, oh, maybe the last six to twelve months.  I don't mean
> >> newsgroups in general, just comp.lang.c.  The change I'm talking
> >> about is an increase in number, size, and proportion, of content,
> >> postings, and threads that have little or no relationship to the
> >> C language, which is ostensibly what comp.lang.c is for.
> 
> > i got quite opposite complain, too much boring standards, not enough real c coding of 'something' (and discussion on it)
> 
> Why can't the group be for everyone? Including discussing Standards 
> minutiae if that's what some people want (but I agree it isn't very 
> interesting). You don't need to take part in those discussions.
> 
> I come here as a diverting break from whatever else I might be doing, 
> now that I seem to know too much C, for the purposes I use it for, to 
> ask questions about it.
> 
Do i said i want standard discussions to move out? - I dont think so] (still i would like to discuss a bit wider variety of topics, like gcc, most common c api interfaces, some implementations of things in c, and more) [got no time to discuss it but this is my opinion, too shallow topicity is bad]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71678

right now im inactive anyway doing some asm and feelin god wit that ;<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71680

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:36:18 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> right now im inactive anyway doing some asm and feelin god wit that ;<

What asm are you doing?

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71681

W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 18:41:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:36:18 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> > right now im inactive anyway doing some asm and feelin god wit that ;<
> 
> What asm are you doing?
> 
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin

god name was mistaenly called, and hodgin appeared - (i meant good)

PE file format study, basic stuff like that

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71685

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:52:53 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 18:41:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> > On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:36:18 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> > > right now im inactive anyway doing some asm and feelin god wit that ;<
> > 
> > What asm are you doing?
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Rick C. Hodgin
> 
> god name was mistaenly called, and hodgin appeared - (i meant good)

We all understood that. :-)

> PE file format study, basic stuff like that

Are you "firr" in comp.lang.asm.x86?  If so, why firr there and fir here?

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71688

W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 19:17:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:52:53 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> > W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 18:41:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> > > On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:36:18 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> > > > right now im inactive anyway doing some asm and feelin god wit that ;<
> > > 
> > > What asm are you doing?
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Rick C. Hodgin
> > 
> > god name was mistaenly called, and hodgin appeared - (i meant good)
> 
> We all understood that. :-)
> 
> > PE file format study, basic stuff like that
> 
> Are you "firr" in comp.lang.asm.x86?  If so, why firr there and fir here?
> 
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin

firr is even (like 4**4 is 256/8 bits) fits more to asm (i also use 'tekk' sometimes, i use many nicknames ;/ (I once met a fellow
with nickname Q, also good chosem one i think)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71690

W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 19:29:09 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 19:17:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> > On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:52:53 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> > > W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 18:41:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał:
> > > > On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:36:18 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> > > > > right now im inactive anyway doing some asm and feelin god wit that ;<
> > > > 
> > > > What asm are you doing?
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Rick C. Hodgin
> > > 
> > > god name was mistaenly called, and hodgin appeared - (i meant good)
> > 
> > We all understood that. :-)
> > 
> > > PE file format study, basic stuff like that
> > 
> > Are you "firr" in comp.lang.asm.x86?  If so, why firr there and fir here?
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Rick C. Hodgin
> 
> firr is even (like 4**4 is 256/8 bits) fits more to asm (i also use 'tekk' sometimes, i use many nicknames ;/ (I once met a fellow
> with nickname Q, also good chosem one i think)

yet one interesting i use is "selfinflicted minddetonator"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71693

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 1:40:26 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> yet one interesting i use is "selfinflicted minddetonator"

I use Rick C. Hodgin. :-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71719

Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 03/10/2015 16:43, fir wrote:
>> W dniu sobota, 3 października 2015 17:02:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Tim Rentsch napisał:
>
>>> It seems like there has been a big change in newsgroup postings
>>> over, oh, maybe the last six to twelve months.  I don't mean
>>> newsgroups in general, just comp.lang.c.  The change I'm talking
>>> about is an increase in number, size, and proportion, of content,
>>> postings, and threads that have little or no relationship to the
>>> C language, which is ostensibly what comp.lang.c is for.
>
>> i got quite opposite complain, too much boring standards, not enough
>> real c coding of 'something' (and discussion on it)
>
> Why can't the group be for everyone? Including discussing Standards 
> minutiae if that's what some people want (but I agree it isn't very 
> interesting). You don't need to take part in those discussions.
>
> I come here as a diverting break from whatever else I might be doing, 
> now that I seem to know too much C, for the purposes I use it for, to 
> ask questions about it.

The group is still about C.  Of course discussions about "real C coding"
are as topical as nitpicking discussions about Standards minutiae.

It's the articles about things that are not related to C at all that are
the problem.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71785

Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
> but I couldn't think of a better one.
 
> It seems like there has been a big change in newsgroup postings
> over, oh, maybe the last six to twelve months.  I don't mean
> newsgroups in general, just comp.lang.c.  The change I'm talking
> about is an increase in number, size, and proportion, of content,
> postings, and threads that have little or no relationship to the
> C language, which is ostensibly what comp.lang.c is for.

Some years ago, I used to read c.l.c somewhat regularly, but
then stopped for a long time. There were just too many posts.

Seems to me that is happenning again. 

Some posts might even be reasonably related to C, but still
not be worth asking.
 
> I find this trend, to put it mildly, pretty disappointing.  I
> expect it affects my reading more than it does that of many or
> most other people, partly because as a matter of principle I
> don't use killfiles.  (I don't want to get into why, just noting
> the fact of it.)  The effect is big.  To me it seems (without
> having done any objective measurement) that the "signal-to-noise"
> ratio is now less than one.  One way or another I think something
> has to change, either a return to a more focused set of content,
> or some kind of change in how I participate in the newsgroup.

I also don't use a killfile, but might just go onto the next
post without reading it if it doesn't seem likely to be useful.
 
> I have in the past resisted trying to define what constitutes a
> "topical" posting.  In particular I don't think it's helpful to
> call something "on topic" or "off topic".  However I would like
> now to suggest a guideline:  if what you're writing is not
> directly and primarily about the C language, ask yourself the
> question "What percentage of comp.lang.c's nominal audience is
> interested in reading this?"  If the answer is less than about
> 10% then a good rule of thumb is it shouldn't be posted.  What is
> probably more important is to weigh the size of the material in
> question, not just in the current posting but how much is likely
> to be produced in response.  The larger the size, the higher the
> threshold should be for what audience percentage is interested to
> read it.

In addition, trim down excess follow-ups from previous posts.

For one, if I don't see anything new in the first few pages
(of about 24 lines) I will go to the next.

But even more, consider the density of information in the
resulting post. Is it really useful in the understanding of
how to use C, or how C might reasonable evolve. A post could
be directly related to C and still not be worth posting.

Put another way, would you want to read it if someone else
posted it.
 
> As for myself, I'm not sure how I might change my participation
> in the group to offset the effects of such postings.  However, I
> can say one thing, which is I resolve to be more strict in my own
> behavior to avoid material that is not directly and primarily
> about the C language, and considering both my own comments and
> any other such comments likely to be generated as a result.

Sometimes I just give up and mark all articles read.

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71793

W dniu niedziela, 4 października 2015 07:26:24 UTC+2 użytkownik glen herrmannsfeldt napisał:
> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
> > but I couldn't think of a better one.
>  
> > It seems like there has been a big change in newsgroup postings
> > over, oh, maybe the last six to twelve months.  I don't mean
> > newsgroups in general, just comp.lang.c.  The change I'm talking
> > about is an increase in number, size, and proportion, of content,
> > postings, and threads that have little or no relationship to the
> > C language, which is ostensibly what comp.lang.c is for.
> 
> Some years ago, I used to read c.l.c somewhat regularly, but
> then stopped for a long time. There were just too many posts.
> 
> Seems to me that is happenning again. 
> 
> Some posts might even be reasonably related to C, but still
> not be worth asking.
>  
> > I find this trend, to put it mildly, pretty disappointing.  I
> > expect it affects my reading more than it does that of many or
> > most other people, partly because as a matter of principle I
> > don't use killfiles.  (I don't want to get into why, just noting
> > the fact of it.)  The effect is big.  To me it seems (without
> > having done any objective measurement) that the "signal-to-noise"
> > ratio is now less than one.  One way or another I think something
> > has to change, either a return to a more focused set of content,
> > or some kind of change in how I participate in the newsgroup.
> 
> I also don't use a killfile, but might just go onto the next
> post without reading it if it doesn't seem likely to be useful.
>  
> > I have in the past resisted trying to define what constitutes a
> > "topical" posting.  In particular I don't think it's helpful to
> > call something "on topic" or "off topic".  However I would like
> > now to suggest a guideline:  if what you're writing is not
> > directly and primarily about the C language, ask yourself the
> > question "What percentage of comp.lang.c's nominal audience is
> > interested in reading this?"  If the answer is less than about
> > 10% then a good rule of thumb is it shouldn't be posted.  What is
> > probably more important is to weigh the size of the material in
> > question, not just in the current posting but how much is likely
> > to be produced in response.  The larger the size, the higher the
> > threshold should be for what audience percentage is interested to
> > read it.
> 
> In addition, trim down excess follow-ups from previous posts.
> 
> For one, if I don't see anything new in the first few pages
> (of about 24 lines) I will go to the next.
> 
> But even more, consider the density of information in the
> resulting post. Is it really useful in the understanding of
> how to use C, or how C might reasonable evolve. A post could
> be directly related to C and still not be worth posting.
> 
> Put another way, would you want to read it if someone else
> posted it.
>  
> > As for myself, I'm not sure how I might change my participation
> > in the group to offset the effects of such postings.  However, I
> > can say one thing, which is I resolve to be more strict in my own
> > behavior to avoid material that is not directly and primarily
> > about the C language, and considering both my own comments and
> > any other such comments likely to be generated as a result.
> 
> Sometimes I just give up and mark all articles read.
> 
> -- glen

i skip not reading whole threads, 
two good points of this group i noticed
was
1) some bright enerrgy which makes me to
refresh my english few times ago
2) merithorical threads (like bignum arithmetic )

bright energy and good mood was sadly spoiled by attacks of few insulters there
(but it my eventualy get back, who knows )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71867

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:02:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
> but I couldn't think of a better one.
> 
> I have in the past resisted trying to define what constitutes a
> "topical" posting.  In particular I don't think it's helpful to
> call something "on topic" or "off topic".  
>
It's hard one. Few of my posts are directly about the C standard
as defined by ANSI. That's a very narrow topic, and in my view it's
not enough to sustain a newsgroup.
However I try to stick to programming (I have been drawn into answering
Rick's theological points, but it wasn't clear how best to deal with
that, and I took the judgement that it could possibly be helpful).
But where you discussion of types, currency types, and hyper-inflation 
cease to be topical? A discussion of Weimar Germany isn't obviously
on topic, and at first sight you'd say to belongs in a history or
economics newsgroup. But the question of whether 64 bits is going
to be enough to store a hyper-inflected currency is relevant enough,
drawing topicality so tightly as to exclude it would in my view be 
too strict.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71913

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:02:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
>> but I couldn't think of a better one.
>> 
>> I have in the past resisted trying to define what constitutes a
>> "topical" posting.  In particular I don't think it's helpful to
>> call something "on topic" or "off topic".  
>>
> It's hard one. Few of my posts are directly about the C standard
> as defined by ANSI. That's a very narrow topic, and in my view it's
> not enough to sustain a newsgroup.
> However I try to stick to programming (I have been drawn into answering
> Rick's theological points, but it wasn't clear how best to deal with
> that, and I took the judgement that it could possibly be helpful).
> But where you discussion of types, currency types, and hyper-inflation 
> cease to be topical? A discussion of Weimar Germany isn't obviously
> on topic, and at first sight you'd say to belongs in a history or
> economics newsgroup. But the question of whether 64 bits is going
> to be enough to store a hyper-inflected currency is relevant enough,
> drawing topicality so tightly as to exclude it would in my view be 
> too strict.

Has anyone suggested that such discussions are off-topic?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71936

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:02:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
>> but I couldn't think of a better one.

(snip)

> But where you discussion of types, currency types, and hyper-inflation 
> cease to be topical? A discussion of Weimar Germany isn't obviously
> on topic, and at first sight you'd say to belongs in a history or
> economics newsgroup. But the question of whether 64 bits is going
> to be enough to store a hyper-inflected currency is relevant enough,
> drawing topicality so tightly as to exclude it would in my view be 
> too strict.

The general case that one has to be careful that the values used
stay within range of the variables might be topical, but maybe
it is general enough not to be. That is, it is a general CS question,
not specific to C. 

The exact effect that might happen might be topical. 

The number of bits needed to represent currency doesn't seem
topical to C, though I don't know the financial newsgroups
at all. I suspect there is a newsgroup where inflation is
topical.

But note that very few C programmers are likely to be programming
in such countries.

To sum it up, before posting consider the usefulness of the post,
and even more the sum of the unusefulness of your posts over the day.
(Note sum, and not average.)

I suspect none of us are perfect in writing 100% useful posts,
but it is worth trying to get better.

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72048

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:

> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:02:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
>> but I couldn't think of a better one.
>>
>> I have in the past resisted trying to define what constitutes a
>> "topical" posting.  In particular I don't think it's helpful to
>> call something "on topic" or "off topic".  
>
> It's hard one.  Few of my posts are directly about the C standard
> as defined by ANSI.  That's a very narrow topic, and in my view it's
> not enough to sustain a newsgroup.

You have construed the area too narrowly.  comp.lang.c is about
the C language, not about the C standard.  IMO any question about
program behavior that pertains to the language accepted by
something that purports to be a C compiler is a reasonable area
of discussion.  The key point is that discussion should nominally
be limited to something pertinent to C language questions, but
that is still a very broad area.

> However I try to stick to programming [snip]

For general programming questions there is comp.programming.

> But the question of whether 64 bits is going to be enough to store
> a hyper-inflected currency is relevant enough, drawing topicality
> so tightly as to exclude it would in my view be too strict.

The recent discussion here related to that started off (IIRC) as
a C question, and may have branched off into unrelated areas.  As
a side branch off of a discussion about C matters, it's fine.  If
started as a new and separate topic on its own, IMO that is poor
net etiquette.  In any case my concern is not for threads that
are 80% topical, but threads that are 20% topical or less, which
makes up at least 80% of the noise.  In fact that might be a good
rule of thumb - when about to post, consider the question of
whether postings in the (sub-)thread are still at least 80%
topical;  if the answer is No then direct the conversation to
another venue.

In keeping with my general philosophies I prefer not to impose
any specific guideline, or even try to frame a specific
guideline.  I would much rather rely on individual judgment.
Unfortunately recent experience indicates that, for the current
composition of group participants, leaving people to their own
devices has given results that in my view are way over the line.
For better or worse there is a group effect - one thread straying
outside the nominal group area increases the chance that other
threads will also wander off (or worse, start off being unrelated
and remaining so).  So I ask everyone to try to be more observant
of the group's nominal charter, and avoid going outside it too
far or too often.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72061

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 08:02:47 -0700, Tim Rentsch wrote:

>I don't know if "topicality" is exactly the right subject here
>but I couldn't think of a better one.
>
>It seems like there has been a big change in newsgroup postings
>over, oh, maybe the last six to twelve months.  I don't mean
>newsgroups in general, just comp.lang.c.  The change I'm talking

i conserder to kill file all post that has to many lines
of prose, because i'm a little lazy

is it possible to say all in few words

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web