Mason C wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 09:40:03 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
> wrote:

>> A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
>> anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is
>> real.
>
> But be wary of using your mail address without something to keep
> robot spammers from hitting you. Some time ago there was (and is?) a
> virus called "swen" -- news spelled backwards -- which used
> addresses collected from newsgroups here. I had the misfortune of
> getting it by carelessness in displaying my address.

Been using my real email for at least a decade. Same email address as
well. Get so spam but not as much as most folks, SeaMonkey filters most.
Biggest trigger to catch spam I have found is to go to the "wrong"
websites... Now that my kids are gone and there are no teenagers in the
house the spam load is a fraction of past levels...

>> Unless, of course, you wish to ask well, by the netiquette, which
>> includes informativeness and answering any clarifying questions.

Learn to ask you questions better. Give a URL, and learn to be more
accurate in your description and your results may improve.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

>>This group (and *.stylesheets) are worthwhile to browse and search through
>>previously answered posts, but that's it. It's not a place to ask
>>questions. You'll receive more commentary about your posting style
>>(particularly quoting styles, as you noted) and your failure to account
>>for
>>the entire Earth's population before one of the ful posters comes
>>around. There are far better and efficient places to ask questions.
>
> Regarding html and css problems, please suggest some place.
>
> Mason C

Give http://www.codingforums.com/index.php a try. I've had positive
experiences there.

http://www.webmasterworld.com *was* probably the best, prior to it moving to
a subscription model. I've heard the occasional comment that it's still
worth it, but I can't claim to know much about the present paying community.
Still appears very active.

> And you need to be able to recognize useful content from crap (which
> sometimes _looks_ useful).
>
> A poster's name is usually informative. If it doesn't even look like
> anyone's real full name, the odds are that nothing in the message is real.

In my opinion the authenticity of a poster's name is not a valid indicator
of the usefulness of the post.

Far more relevant is the context from which the author is speaking. Some
posters are indeed experts and provide very accurate information about HTML
(or CSS, in the other group), yet move far beyond their scope of knowledge
and add unsolicited criticism and advice about design and UI decisions. Far
too often the advice is horrible, particularly when the OP's objective is
revenue or lead generation versus the newsgroup's seemingly pre-defined goal
of content delivery.

This is an interesting newsgroup to discuss theory, and perhaps learn best
practices for sites destined to serve a public interest. For the authors of
sites serving commercial interests, following the (technically accurate)
advice offered on this group is often a horrible idea. It's better to find
an online community that caters to webmasters working within a similar
context, in contrast to what is found here.