Re: Is [missing context] a reasonable rejection criterion?
Daveed wrote:
For the past few years, the moderators have regularly rejected
articles with the undocumented rejection criterion [missing context].
This criterion is sometimes used when a new posting does not seem to
"make sense on its own"; i.e., the preceding postings in the thread
have to be retrieved and read to understand the new article.
[...]
So, if you care, please followup to this post with your own opinion
and arguments on the matter. If we can discern a clear bias in the
ensuing thread, it will help us decide which way to go.
I'd leave it to the discretion of the moderator.
The point is that on the one hand you can well give relevant context without
quoting even a single line. On the other hand, I have seen postings
starting with "Therefore, you need to...", followed by a full quote of the
previous posting, which leave the reader to guess which part of the quoted
material the poster is responding to.
Since neither of above cases can be spelled out as a strict rule, I'd leave
it to the discretion of the moderator. If in doubt, I would not reject a
posting but maybe just add a comment that it might be difficult to
understand.
Uli
--
Sator Laser GmbH
Gesch??ftsf??hrer: Ronald Boers, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]