Go to bottom

In this report, what will be discussed is my personal trials and tribulations encountered while using newsgroups. I'd known nothing about newsgroups prior to this report, and now that I've completed it, I feel that I've grasped a general idea as to the basics of using newsgroups as a multimedia tool. I now feel that newsgroups is something which could be beneficial to me in the future, and if you read on, I think you'll feel the same way too.

The first time that I ever looked at a newsgroup was in the computer lab. It was part of our assignments and so I figured, I might as well check it out. I used Netscape to find my newsgroups and was amazed at how many different topics existed. I had no idea what or how to choose. I narrowed down the choices, however, to alt.tasteless.jokes and alt.fan.letterman based largely on personal interest value. Once I had selected my two newsgroups, the rest was pretty easy.

I decided to check my messages by topics. That way I could get a pretty good idea as to what I'd be looking at. I saved only messages I thought might be useful to me in the future. The messages which I thought wouldn't be of any use to me later were deleted after being read. This way I could easily keep track of which messages were already read and which remained unread. I thought this was a pretty good system to keep track of things and I'm still using this method.

When I looked at each message, I tried not to read into them too much because they're all just opinions. There's no solid facts behind each message and so you can't really take it to heart. If you realize this, then reading newsgroups will probably be more worthwhile to you. I mean, if there's one person telling you one thing, and another telling you the complete opposite, who's right? Here's where one must realize that these messages are largely personal and thus, not concrete.

There are many different posting styles in any newsgroup. Some important new concepts which I've developed are posting, flaming, spamming, following up, and deciding whether or not to include the original message while I'm replying. Posting is simply that... posting a message to your newsgroup. When you feel you have something to say, you just post a message. Spamming is when people write a lot of the same stuff under the same thread. This, I feel, is rather uninteresting. All it is, is a bunch of people writing basically the same thing. Flaming is when someone replies to a message in a negative way, trying to cause distress to the other person. This I feel is something which I may use in the future. Everyone enjoys disagreeing with another person... I enjoy it with a passion. Following up is when you respond to a particular message. I only include the original message in my follow up when I think the meaning of what I'm responding to may have been lost. Many people, I've noticed, include the original message in all their replies. This is unnecessary. You should only include the original message when you feel the person may have forgotten what was being said.

As I've said before, most people tend to quote the original message in their replies. They usually start out with what the originator of the message says, then follow up with their thoughts. This is important when you want to let everyone know what you're responding to. A good example of this comes from my alt.fan.letterman newsgroup. usenet@drn.zippo.com writes:

In article , donz5@aol.com says...

>"Harry" wrote:

>

>>>>The Late Show web site states that

>the Monday March.17 show

>will feature Howard Stern.

>It doesn't say that it is a repeat.

>Wasn't he just on ? Is this a

>mistake or is Stern actually

>booked again ( I can't

>imagine him appearing on a

>new show so soon after his

>last appearance )<<<

>

>Read it again. It says "Howard Sterns" (with the quotes -- indicating it

>ain't the broadcaster).

As of March 11, it says radio host Howard Stern. What is going on

here ?

Most people also follow the brevity and one-topic-per-message rules quite effectively. They realize that the more things you include in a message, the easier it'll be for the meaning to get lost. It is for this particular reason that one should learn to follow the brevity and one-topic rules whenever deciding to post a message.

Postings which elicit flaming most likely are ones which go against the general philosophy of the group. One can only imagine what would happen if in a Mariah Carey newsgroup, you posted something saying that she "sings like a toad." It's postings like these, which break the norm of the group, which elicit flaming.

Many times a thread will lose it's original intent. People will keep responding and posting to this thread and soon, the meaning is lost. This is when a new thread emerges. Some people will still post follow-ups to the original thread, but once it starts getting boring, a new thread usually takes over.

What usually keeps a thread going, is the importance or the stimulating capability of the message. Who wants to reply to a thread which talks about nothing? By including things which may stimulate some brain activity, or relay some important notions, one can successfully create a lasting thread. Those which accomplish this will remain a thread for a long time. If you don't have these qualities, however, the thread usually will just fizzle out and die.

Many times one can predict what sorts of responses will follow a posting. If there are questions, the likely responses will be answers to the questions. If there are things which go against the norm of the group, then negative responses usually follow. It's usually rather easy to predict what sorts of replies any particular posting will elicit.

I've found that most times, when replying to messages, the person replying will distinguish between message and messenger. The response usually is a reply strictly to the message. In instances where flaming is used, however, the reply will usually target the messenger and not the message. They usually attack the originator of the message, and refer to the message only occasionally. It's in these instances where the line of messenger and message become blurred.

When someone breaks the norm, philosophy, or expectation of the group, a long thread usually follows. Whether its a thread consisting of an excessive amount of flaming, or whether its responses trying to persuade the originator of the message to change their views, the thread which results will usually be a long one.

I checked my newsgroups sporadically throughout the first week. This was just so I could get used to the groups and try to understand their particular netiquette. All in all, I think I checked it twice in the first week which in itself was enough spectating for me. I wanted to be actively involved.

The second week of investigation was when the fun really began. I started posting to both my newsgroups. I posted 3 messages in alt.tasteless.jokes and 2 in alt.fan.letterman. I wondered whether or not people would write to me. I wondered if they'd think my postings were lame. I was experiencing some sort of anxiety, but I wasn't sure what exactly it was. It was neither elation nor depression. It was more of a feeling of normalcy. The only difference, I thought, was the image of what types of messages I'd receive. This was enough, however, to make me feel slightly on edge, but not enough to rattle me. And so I waited.

I didn't have to wait too long, however, as the very next day I received a personal message on my e-mail account. Someone had already responded to my inquiry. I was ecstatic. I checked the message and wrote back to the sender immediately. This way, I hoped, I could keep in touch with this person.

I then went back to exploring newsgroups through the netscape browser. I looked at postings by topics because there were many messages which I had absolutely no interest in. By grouping them as such, I was able to select whichever topic I wanted to look at. Once in that particular one, I could read the messages from beginning to end.

I post messages whenever I feel like I really have something to say. I don't want to be writing things which are unnecessary, but rather only post when I feel it's extremely important. I've posted messages only once since my initial posting binge, but I'm sure I'll be posting more sometime in the future. Newsgroups is an important new aspect of the internet that I've discovered.

While searching for any related articles to my own report in Alta Vista, I used many different words. After talking it over with some classmates, however, I decided to use the words "newsgroups," "introduction to," and "Usenet." I combined these words and came up with a listing of some possible matches. After checking them out, I found that these two were the most relevant to my topic.

In Intro to Newsgroups, what was discussed was the basics of beginning to use newsgroups. They tell you what is proper netiquette and what not to do. They discuss many of the same things which I discuss in my own report such as flaming and posting and general terms like that. If you feel you need some extra advice on using newsgroups, then I suggest you check this site out.

The next article which I found, Usenet Newsgroups: Resources, was a site where one can look for newsgroups discussing the art of using newsgroups. This was an interesting site because it served as a listing of places to check out. Sort of an "annotated index," to my own annotated index. There's alot of information to be found under this link and I suggest you check it out too.

Go to top

If you have any comments about my paper, or just want to write to me, feel free to e-mail me.