On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:46:14 -0500, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

In article ,
"Rick Brandt" wrote:

As long as you keep the list of groups to three (maybe four)
or less and all the groups are relevant then crossposting
is fine and MUCH preferred to Multi-Posting.

Agreed.

My newsreader will mark as READ an article that I have already read in one
group but is crossposted to another group I read. (No point in reading the
same article twice. That is where the annoyance factor comes in.)

Posting the same article individually to each of several groups circumvents
the above feature/aid. That is when the annoyance factor REALLY soars.

On those rare occasions when I crosspost an article, I try to include
"[Crossposted]" in the first line of the body. I consider this a courtesy to
those that might reply but do NOT want their newsreader to automatically
crosspost their reply. (This alerts the replier(?) that they may wish to edit
OUT the additional newsgroups before posting.)

The trouble is that so few posters say what group they are actually
reading, that if one omits groups, the OP may never see the answer.

I usually read any group I'm cross-posting to, but not always.
Because I include the added group when I think they will have special
knowledge, but that doesn't mean I'm interested in their other topics.

I especially read the other group when the first group is this one,
because this is so busy, it can be hard to find my own thread after a
day or two. And I can retain headers in other groups for years but
not so long in groups where I retrieve most of the bodies.


Also, there are times when I post in a specialized group and get no
answer. After a day or three of waiting, I might post in another
group. That's multi-posting, but i don't think it is wrong under
these circumstances.

There is at least one Netscape group that gets a lot of traffic but
80-90% of questions go unanswered. I haven't found a better one.