Discussion:
IBM PC Hardware Moderator Needed?
(too old to reply)
GoLiveSue
2003-07-12 16:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Hello

Please don't be mad at me if I should not be asking this here... If you have
any knowlege about IBM PCs, such as general hardware and trouble shooting,
and you like to help people... I need 2 or 3 IBM PC Moderators for my Forum.

Please stop by and sign up <- If nothing else stop by and say HI! so I know
someone did Read this?

Thak you

SUE

http://XenoGlossy.Com
Dean Kent
2003-07-19 17:28:35 UTC
Permalink
I'm not *so* negative on private messaging systems. DeanK has a
very good site running, though I don't choose to go there either.
One minor benefit of a 'private' forum - it is moderated so that spam and
extremely socially unacceptable messages are removed quickly. Another one
is that Usenet is not as well known or easily accessible to everyone.
There are quite a number of people (even technically competent ones) who are
not familiar with, or simply do not frequent Usenet.
The main problem I have is that HTTP is a horrible user
interface. NNTP is far better for this sort of thing. Sometimes
moderated groups are the way to go, but these are also possible
with NNTP.
No real good reason that it can't emulate the best features of NNTP (only
time and a bit of coding).

The reality is that most people frequent only a small subset of forums, just
as they frequent only a small subset of newsgroups. Having a 'usenet wide'
search is fairly limited in value (mostly to find out if someone has
discussed a very specific subject, as the number of threads on more general
subjects is quite overwhelming). I use both to a limited degree, and find
some value in both.

It isn't the interface, nor is it the protocol. It is the content that is
important. ;-).

Regards,
Dean
--
Keith
Dean Kent
2003-07-19 23:52:38 UTC
Permalink
As Keith mentioned, moderated forums are definitely possible on
Usenet, and not significantly different than on a private forum,
except perhaps that you can ban users from a private forum and not a
moderated usenet group.
Actually there is a major difference. A newsgroup is 'static' once it is
established. IOW, the 'rules' of whether it is moderated, who moderates it,
how it is moderated, the acceptable subject matter, etc. are all determined
by the charter - which must be established at the time the newsgroup is
created. After that, unless there is a process written in the charter for
making changes, it cannot be changed. Go see the various *.config
newsgroups where news admins hang out and read their discussions. Usenet
is a *mess*, and they know it... but, it is their job to keep it under as
much control as possible.
However, you could auto-block an e-mail
address from a moderated usenet group, and a banned user on a private
forum can create a new account in a matter of minutes.
No, you cannot do anything on a newsgroup that is not specifically mentioned
in the charter. If it is not in the charter, then it is subject to whatever
whims the various news admins decide. This is why some news servers allow
messages to be deleted, and others don't. This is also how some posts are
automatically removed by robots (if they are commercial and are
cross-posted), and some are not. Anyone who knows the rules, can get
around the 'restrictions' and there is nothing anyone - moderator included -
can do about it. Why? Because the newsfeed goes to every news server in
the world, and it is up to each news admin to decide whether to honor
various Usenet commands.

Just wondering, how many people here have every used the Usenet control
messages?
I haven't seen ANY private forum that could even come close to the
crappiest newsreaders out there, let alone one that could match the
useability of a piece of software like Agent. What's more, the
response time is piss-poor as compared to a newsreader, even on a DSL
or cable modem connection.
It depends upon what you mean by 'usability'. If your intent is to filter
out messages, a well-run forum doesn't require it. If you mean downloading
headers - an HTTP based forum doesn't require that. If you mean
crossposting - a well-implemented forum doesn't require that. If you mean
message threading, then it is simply a matter of coding. After all,
newsreaders are simply software programs reading messages that are 'chained'
together, just like private forums are...

Just curious as to why NNTP is more 'usable'. Don't get me wrong - I like
Usenet. But I also like mailing lists (email), and I like the Outlook
'folder' forums (sort of a private Usenet), and I like Web based forums...
all for different reasons. But in the end, I visit the ones I do because of
the content. There are literally tens of thousands of Usenet forums that
are absolutely useless (no pun intended), and contain nothing but drivel -
no matter how 'good' the interface is, or how usable it is. OTOH, there
are mailing lists and web based forums that have information no Usenet group
in the universe currently contains.
Content is key for sure, that's the only reason why I ever bother with
web-based forums at all. However, in my mind usenet provides a MUCH
better method for distributing that content. Web forums seem to
provide a better method for distributing fancy smily-faces and
signatures with pictures, but not much else. :>
Rather than make a statement of fact without any evidence - please provide a
good reason that it is MUCH better for distributing content.

I might suggest you are visiting the wrong forums if you think that the only
benefit is the fancy interfaces... ;-)

Regards,
Dean
Tony Hill
2003-07-20 22:41:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:52:38 GMT, "Dean Kent"
Post by Dean Kent
I haven't seen ANY private forum that could even come close to the
crappiest newsreaders out there, let alone one that could match the
useability of a piece of software like Agent. What's more, the
response time is piss-poor as compared to a newsreader, even on a DSL
or cable modem connection.
It depends upon what you mean by 'usability'. If your intent is to filter
out messages, a well-run forum doesn't require it. If you mean downloading
headers - an HTTP based forum doesn't require that. If you mean
crossposting - a well-implemented forum doesn't require that. If you mean
message threading, then it is simply a matter of coding. After all,
newsreaders are simply software programs reading messages that are 'chained'
together, just like private forums are...
How about doing things like using my spell checker on messages, or
cutting and pasting from other messages, or sorting messages by
date/thread/author/whatever, or searching through headers, or
searching in a message, or referring back to a message I posted three
months ago, or any number of other things that I can do in a matter of
seconds in Agent (or any other decent newsreader) but which are
difficult to impossible to do on web-based forums.

Perhaps the biggest problem with web-based forums though is that I
need to go to one forum to read up about the latest processors, than
another forum to read up about a new Linux security flaw, than another
forum if I want to find out about that funny noise my car's been
making, etc. etc. Each one usually requires me to register and login
before I can post, and each one has a different interface. With
usenet, I can do it all from the comfort of Agent.
Post by Dean Kent
Just curious as to why NNTP is more 'usable'. Don't get me wrong - I like
Usenet. But I also like mailing lists (email), and I like the Outlook
'folder' forums (sort of a private Usenet), and I like Web based forums...
all for different reasons. But in the end, I visit the ones I do because of
the content. There are literally tens of thousands of Usenet forums that
are absolutely useless (no pun intended), and contain nothing but drivel -
no matter how 'good' the interface is, or how usable it is. OTOH, there
are mailing lists and web based forums that have information no Usenet group
in the universe currently contains.
Yes, there are mailing lists and web based forums that contain useful
content, which is why I visit them. However, if I'm looking for the
answer to my question, http://groups.google.com is the first place I
look. 10+ years of Usenet all gathered into one is a whole lot of
content!
Post by Dean Kent
Content is key for sure, that's the only reason why I ever bother with
web-based forums at all. However, in my mind usenet provides a MUCH
better method for distributing that content. Web forums seem to
provide a better method for distributing fancy smily-faces and
signatures with pictures, but not much else. :>
Rather than make a statement of fact without any evidence - please provide a
good reason that it is MUCH better for distributing content.
I might suggest you are visiting the wrong forums if you think that the only
benefit is the fancy interfaces... ;-)
Hmm, so I should stop visiting your forum? :>
Dean Kent
2003-07-21 00:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Hill
How about doing things like using my spell checker on messages,
That can be done on a web-based forum... (meaning, there is no reason why it
couldn't)

or
Post by Tony Hill
cutting and pasting from other messages,
So can that...

or sorting messages by
Post by Tony Hill
date/thread/author/whatever,
So can that...

or searching through headers, or
Post by Tony Hill
searching in a message,
Already can do that on most...

or referring back to a message I posted three
Post by Tony Hill
months ago,
That can be done also...

or any number of other things that I can do in a matter of
Post by Tony Hill
seconds in Agent (or any other decent newsreader) but which are
difficult to impossible to do on web-based forums.
It isn't that a web based forum can't be coded to do these things, just that
there seems to be some wierd 'rule' these days that web-based forums have to
be non-threaded, include a boatload of stupid 'emoticons', etc.
Post by Tony Hill
Perhaps the biggest problem with web-based forums though is that I
need to go to one forum to read up about the latest processors, than
another forum to read up about a new Linux security flaw, than another
forum if I want to find out about that funny noise my car's been
making, etc. etc. Each one usually requires me to register and login
before I can post, and each one has a different interface. With
usenet, I can do it all from the comfort of Agent.
You still haven't given a good reason why a web-based forum can't be as good
at distributing content as Usenet. If a web-based forum software product
became popular, and was used by most websites, then you would have exactly
what you are talking about. IOW, the problem is not inherent in the fact
that it is 'web based'
Post by Tony Hill
Yes, there are mailing lists and web based forums that contain useful
content, which is why I visit them. However, if I'm looking for the
answer to my question, http://groups.google.com is the first place I
look. 10+ years of Usenet all gathered into one is a whole lot of
content!
Google isn't Usenet. It is a web-based search engine/forum that displays
Usenet messages that have been stored in a data base. You've actually just
contradicted your original argument, and made mine. :-).
Post by Tony Hill
Hmm, so I should stop visiting your forum? :>
Your choice, of course. ;-). All I am arguing against is the concept that
web-based is inherently inferior to Usenet. It may currently be that way,
but it doesn't *have* to be that way. It is all simply software that
formats text and graphics into some format for people to use...

Regards,
Dean
daytripper
2003-07-21 01:32:19 UTC
Permalink
[sniped]
Post by Dean Kent
Post by Tony Hill
Yes, there are mailing lists and web based forums that contain useful
content, which is why I visit them. However, if I'm looking for the
answer to my question, http://groups.google.com is the first place I
look. 10+ years of Usenet all gathered into one is a whole lot of
content!
Google isn't Usenet. It is a web-based search engine/forum that displays
Usenet messages that have been stored in a data base. You've actually just
contradicted your original argument, and made mine. :-).
Weak.

/daytripper (c'mon, Dean, you must be able to do better than that.)
Dean Kent
2003-07-21 02:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by daytripper
Post by Dean Kent
Google isn't Usenet. It is a web-based search engine/forum that displays
Usenet messages that have been stored in a data base. You've actually just
contradicted your original argument, and made mine. :-).
Weak.
Not weak at all. It is exactly the point I was making. The data is simply
something to be presented in a particular format. Therefore, the interface
isn't really inherently better with Usenet, just that over many, many years
it is what the 'usenet people' have decided they like. A web-based form
*could* do exactly the same thing.

As for content, since it is people who are providing it - and in at least a
few cases the people are the same - then this isn't an argument either.
Comp.arch is arguably one of the most technical of newsgroups, and a number
of the regulars there post on web forums as well.

While you can use Google 'groups' search for Usenet, you can use the
'standard' Google search to find content from many web based forums.
Really! Try it sometime. :-).

There is a lot of information in the Usenet archives, and it is a great
source of information. However, there is also a lot of great information to
be gained via FTP. And via the Web. And via email. None of them have a
lock on good content. And you can find data bases with information from
all but private email. Hell, you can even use a web based search tool to
search most email lists...

It is my opinion that this mentality is similar to how many 'established'
law schools have distain for one particular online law university because it
doesn't have a 'brick and mortar' library. Interestingly, when students go
to the library, they get online and use a couple of web-based tools for
their research (Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis). The 'snob appeal' of the
'traditional' law school demands a lot more money from those who believe the
tripe that online schools are 'inferior, but the facts show that pass rate
for the Bar exam is actual higher for the online students.

I suppose they would be better served by getting their information from
Usenet though... <vbg>
Post by daytripper
/daytripper (c'mon, Dean, you must be able to do better than that.)
Regards,
Dean (I really don't need to, but it's fun to watch people try to
rationalize their biases ;-).
Tony Hill
2003-07-22 04:49:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:44:02 GMT, "Dean Kent"
Post by Dean Kent
Post by Tony Hill
How about doing things like using my spell checker on messages,
That can be done on a web-based forum... (meaning, there is no reason why it
couldn't)
<snip>

Many of these things can/could be done on web-based forums, it's just
usually a pain in the ass and not universally implemented. In cases
where these features are implemented, they are usually quite poorly
done.
Post by Dean Kent
Post by Tony Hill
Perhaps the biggest problem with web-based forums though is that I
need to go to one forum to read up about the latest processors, than
another forum to read up about a new Linux security flaw, than another
forum if I want to find out about that funny noise my car's been
making, etc. etc. Each one usually requires me to register and login
before I can post, and each one has a different interface. With
usenet, I can do it all from the comfort of Agent.
You still haven't given a good reason why a web-based forum can't be as good
at distributing content as Usenet.
Err, did ya read my message Deano?! I just gave several good reasons
why web-based forums are as good at distributing content as Usenet!
Sure, some of these things COULD be fixed in the future, but they
aren't there now, and the last one (having to go to different web
sites for different topics) is unlikely to ever be fixed due to the
very nature of web-based content.
Post by Dean Kent
If a web-based forum software product
became popular, and was used by most websites, then you would have exactly
what you are talking about. IOW, the problem is not inherent in the fact
that it is 'web based'
The very nature of a web-based forum system means that there will
never be a single source for content on different subjects like there
is with Usenet. I can get groups for thousands of different subjects
from a single Usenet server, but would have to go to at least several
hundred websites to do the same with web-based forums. There's also
the speed/latency issue, which I can't see going away any time soon.
Even with broadband connections, web-based forums are VERY painfully
slow in comparison to a newsreader where the messages are stored
locally. Heck, even if they aren't stored locally, messages are
stored on my ISPs newserver, which I have a very fast and low-latency
connection to as compared to more webpages.
Post by Dean Kent
Post by Tony Hill
Yes, there are mailing lists and web based forums that contain useful
content, which is why I visit them. However, if I'm looking for the
answer to my question, http://groups.google.com is the first place I
look. 10+ years of Usenet all gathered into one is a whole lot of
content!
Google isn't Usenet. It is a web-based search engine/forum that displays
Usenet messages that have been stored in a data base. You've actually just
contradicted your original argument, and made mine. :-).
Not really, Google isn't a web-based forum, it's an archive of Usenet
messages. Great for searching for answers to questions, terrible for
posting though. If I happen to find a current thread on Google that I
want to join in, I'll find the newsgroup on my ISP's newserver and
load it into Agent.
Dean Kent
2003-07-23 02:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Hill
Many of these things can/could be done on web-based forums, it's just
usually a pain in the ass and not universally implemented. In cases
where these features are implemented, they are usually quite poorly
done.
I agree. Note that my original statement you responded to was "No real good
reason that it can't emulate the best features of NNTP (only
time and a bit of coding)."
Post by Tony Hill
Err, did ya read my message Deano?! I just gave several good reasons
why web-based forums are as good at distributing content as Usenet!
Sure, some of these things COULD be fixed in the future, but they
aren't there now, and the last one (having to go to different web
sites for different topics) is unlikely to ever be fixed due to the
very nature of web-based content.
My post was about the fact that Usenet is not inherently 'better' than the
Web for distributing content. Some people have tried to make the argument
that it is, but haven't posted any reasons why. What you have done is give
reasons why you prefer Usenet (better tools, etc.).
Post by Tony Hill
The very nature of a web-based forum system means that there will
never be a single source for content on different subjects like there
is with Usenet.
OTOH, Usenet has its own problems.

1) If your ISP doesn't have a new server, you have to pay extra (or hope to
find a free one that stays free).
2) Messages may get dropped by your server, or cancelled messages may (read:
will) get propagated and not deleted from every server
3) Most news servers carry only a subset of all available groups.
4) Most free news servers limit the number of messages they will keep in any
newsgroup, and may lag by as much as a week or more.
5) If a newsgroup becomes unused, it is all but impossible to remove it.
6) Once a newsgroup is established, the charter cannot be changed as a
general rule.

There are other drawbacks to Usenet, just as there are drawbacks to
web-based forums.

As for Google - it is *not* Usenet, so you cannot use that as an inherent
superiority of Usenet. It *is* possible for someone to create an archive
of all known web-forums, just as Google archives websites today. It is only
a question of whether there is a market for it.
Post by Tony Hill
I can get groups for thousands of different subjects
from a single Usenet server, but would have to go to at least several
hundred websites to do the same with web-based forums.
*If* you have a good news server. My own experience is as follows:

1) My first ISP carried only limited newsgroups. Later it upgraded, but
messages were dropped frequently. Even later it had entire days when it
was unavailable. Eventually, they stopped supporting a news server.
Initially, they allowed cancel messages, but later stopped allowing it so I
could not cancel any messages I posted by mistake.

2) I looked for free news servers. At first, I found a few that would allow
posting, but most would block access after a day or two. Eventually, I
found that most 'free' news servers were not intended to be free, but had
just failed to put in any security. Once the 'free news server' lists had
posted it, they were no longer free. I looked at Supernews and a few
others, but didn't want to pay extra for news

3) My second ISP had a news server, but it was unavailable a fair amount of
time. I changed ISPs shortly thereafter because I got DSL.

4) My current ISP has a news server, obviously - but messages are dropped
fairly frequently. On a number of occasions I have not seen the reply to
one of my posts and had to go to Google to read it. I'm sure I haven't
seen replies to other posts as well. This one does not allow cancel
messages either.
Post by Tony Hill
There's also
the speed/latency issue, which I can't see going away any time soon.
It has nothing to do with 'speed' or 'latency'. It has to do with
bandwidth. Most website forums have a lot of graphics to download, so it is
slow. Usenet transfers only text (for non-binary groups) as a single file.
HTML messages are a pain in the arse, and slow things down considerably.
Post by Tony Hill
Even with broadband connections, web-based forums are VERY painfully
slow in comparison to a newsreader where the messages are stored
locally.
What you are experiencing is the fact that headers are transmitted as a
group, and then you download individual messages. There is actually no
reason that this couldn't be done by a web-forum using cookies.
Post by Tony Hill
Heck, even if they aren't stored locally, messages are
stored on my ISPs newserver, which I have a very fast and low-latency
connection to as compared to more webpages.
Your connection is the same no matter what server you are connected to.
Generally, news servers are being accessed less than a web server, so the
response time will be faster.
Post by Tony Hill
Not really, Google isn't a web-based forum, it's an archive of Usenet
messages. Great for searching for answers to questions, terrible for
posting though. If I happen to find a current thread on Google that I
want to join in, I'll find the newsgroup on my ISP's newserver and
load it into Agent.
Google *is* web based. Think about it for a minute. The Usenet archives
are in a data base. When you perform a search, the data base is queried and
an HTML web page is formatted with the headers. You click on one, and
another web page is formatted with another list of headers (threaded this
time). You click on a message, and another HTML page is formatted with the
message text. This is all a web based forum does as well.

The reason that Google can easily do this is because they get a news feed
every day (multiple times a day, no doubt), which they can then store in a
data base. BTW - they *don't* archive attached binaries for obvious reasons
(at least, last time I checked), so it isn't a perfect archive. And, there
are some messages that are dropped (just as with a 'real' news server). I
know this because some of mine from the 'John Corse' days were not there
when I looked for them (I did find them in my 'sent items' folder however -
which I have an archive of for everything ever sent by me).

The bottom line here is that I am not questioning your preferences, I am
simply pointing out that there is nothing inherently superior about Usenet
for distribution of content, nor for having a conversation. The tools may
be superior at this time, but then it has been around a lot longer than the
Web. Some prefer it because it is what they 'grew up with' on the
Internet. By the same token, people who have grown up with the Web and
web-based forums may think otherwise. If it becomes a market opportunity,
someone will create a web-based forum product that will set a 'standard'
that users will desire - and then it would become more feasible to create a
'portal' for web-based forums (it is actually possible today if someone
wanted to create a website for it).

Regards,
Dean
Paul Tiseo
2003-07-23 18:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Kent
You still haven't given a good reason why a web-based forum can't be as good
at distributing content as Usenet. If a web-based forum software product
became popular, and was used by most websites, then you would have exactly
what you are talking about. IOW, the problem is not inherent in the fact
that it is 'web based'
Interesting post to (maybe) support Dean:

http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Two-thirds of the way through, there is an interesting section on
Usenet itself.

Usenet is considered somewhat of a failed piece of social software
by some. Even I think it is outdated in its ability to handle modern
loads and group dynamics. Web forums have an advantage of being a little
more malleable and amenable to re-engineering with some of the ideas
people like Shirky present. Even better than web forums would be RSS
feeds and blogs that can be commented.

I love Usenet myself, but it doesn't blind me to its inherent
problems...

----------------------------------------
Paul Tiseo, Systems Programmer
Research Computing Facility, Mayo Clinic
***@mayo.edu
(please remove numbers to email me)
daytripper
2003-07-20 02:13:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:28:35 GMT, "Dean Kent" <***@realworldtech.com> wrote:
[snipped]
Post by Dean Kent
It isn't the interface, nor is it the protocol. It is the content that is
important. ;-).
respectfully, I disagree. content is where you find it, and usenet is chock
full of good stuff if you know where to look. And web sites rarely provide a
"already seen that" paradigm - you end up having to browse through months of
stuff to find what's new.

And frankly I'd sooner swim with the sharks than put any faith in web-based
content...

/daytripper (i'll take usenet over any web site, any time...)
Dean Kent
2003-07-20 02:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by daytripper
respectfully, I disagree. content is where you find it, and usenet is chock
full of good stuff if you know where to look. And web sites rarely provide a
"already seen that" paradigm - you end up having to browse through months of
stuff to find what's new.
And frankly I'd sooner swim with the sharks than put any faith in web-based
content...
Your choice, of course. Considering the fact that a great many posts
contain links to web based content, I find it an awfully interesting
comment.

Regards,
Dean (who doesn't much care for elitism) ;-).
Post by daytripper
/daytripper (i'll take usenet over any web site, any time...)
daytripper
2003-07-20 03:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by daytripper
respectfully, I disagree. content is where you find it, and usenet is
chock
Post by daytripper
full of good stuff if you know where to look. And web sites rarely provide
a
Post by daytripper
"already seen that" paradigm - you end up having to browse through months
of
Post by daytripper
stuff to find what's new.
And frankly I'd sooner swim with the sharks than put any faith in
web-based
Post by daytripper
content...
Your choice, of course. Considering the fact that a great many posts
contain links to web based content, I find it an awfully interesting
comment.
Regards,
Dean (who doesn't much care for elitism) ;-).
C'mon Deano, it's not "elitism". It's "commercial avoidance...ism"
How much faith can you put in any site that is there to make a profit? And
does one have to hang out at "Tom's" place to know it's run by nitwits?

As for your posit: truth: I can count on one hand the number of
technically-oriented links I've ever followed in all my years on usenet...

/daytripper (If that makes me an elitist, well, ok, I can live with that...)
CLF
2003-07-20 22:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by daytripper
C'mon Deano, it's not "elitism". It's "commercial avoidance...ism"
How much faith can you put in any site that is there to make a profit? And
does one have to hang out at "Tom's" place to know it's run by nitwits?
Are you insinuating that every website is in it 'for profit'? And, that
all websites are at the same technical/ethical level as THG? Perhaps
your
cynical views have prevented you from seeing anything except what you
expect
to see? Just a thought. ;-)
Post by daytripper
As for your posit: truth: I can count on one hand the number of
technically-oriented links I've ever followed in all my years on usenet...
/daytripper (If that makes me an elitist, well, ok, I can live with
that...)
The 'elitism' statement was carefully worded. If your statement was, as
Keith's was, that you simply choose not to visit web-based forums, that
would not be elitist. However, dismissing web-based forums as inherently
inferior to Usenet is...
If you have some actual statistics regarding the number of newsgroups, the
number of web based forums and the percentage of each that have useful
technical content, I would be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, I think
it is obvious where the sentiment comes from. :-).
Regards,
Dean
Who's to say what is technical? Do I have to use a brand name or a special
word (motherboard for example ;) or do I have to show a diagram of the
electrical paths within a CPU that I've created myself? Moreover, does it
have to be right?
Dean Kent
2003-07-21 19:38:54 UTC
Permalink
They are inherently inferior. It is not "elitist" to say so. Just
because you feel their inferiorities are insignificant, does not mean
they aren't there.
Now *this* is hilarious, and typical. Make a statement of fact with no
supporting evidence.

There are many Internet users who don't like Usenet, and prefer web-based
forums, or even chat rooms. They don't like the threaded presentation of
Usenet, and they don't like the 'text only' limitations imposed by many - if
not most - newsgroups, and they don't like having to wade through thousands
of newsgroups to find a viable/active group under the topic they are
interested in. They might claim web-based forums are superior for various
reasons. However, these are *preferences* and have nothing to do with the
inherent superiority/inferiority of the presentation or the way that data is
stored/transmitted. Nor does it have anything to do with the content. Do
you know how many 'dead' newsgroups there are that cannot be deleted, or
even ones that have been hijacked by some group of 'regulars' that makes it
essentially unusable for anyone else? Just because you feel web-based
forums are inferior doesn't mean they are.

The sure sign of an elitist is one who makes claims of superiority using
statement of fact with no supporting objective evidence.

Regards,
Dean
Tony Hill
2003-07-22 04:49:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:38:54 GMT, "Dean Kent"
Post by Dean Kent
Now *this* is hilarious, and typical. Make a statement of fact with no
supporting evidence.
There are many Internet users who don't like Usenet, and prefer web-based
forums, or even chat rooms.
There are also many internet users who think that Microsoft Internet
Explorer IS "the internet"!

That ain't "elitist", it's the *truth*!
Dean Kent
2003-07-23 01:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Hill
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:38:54 GMT, "Dean Kent"
Post by Dean Kent
Now *this* is hilarious, and typical. Make a statement of fact with no
supporting evidence.
There are many Internet users who don't like Usenet, and prefer web-based
forums, or even chat rooms.
There are also many internet users who think that Microsoft Internet
Explorer IS "the internet"!
That ain't "elitist", it's the *truth*!
You are comparing apples and oranges. If someone said "What's Usenet?",
that would be ignorance. If someone said "I've used the various Internet
protocols, but I prefer the Web", that would be a preference. If someone
said "I use the Web, and HTTP is superior to all other protocols so I won't
even use any others", that would be elitist.

Regards,
Dean
chrisv
2003-07-23 20:03:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:38:54 GMT, "Dean Kent"
Post by Dean Kent
Just because you feel web-based
forums are inferior doesn't mean they are.
You're right. I can only say that I don't like any of them I've
tried. They are all fatally flawed, for me, for a variety of reasons.
Keith R. Williams
2003-07-25 04:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Hill
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:38:54 GMT, "Dean Kent"
Post by Dean Kent
Just because you feel web-based
forums are inferior doesn't mean they are.
You're right. I can only say that I don't like any of them I've
tried. They are all fatally flawed, for me, for a variety of reasons.
I think the real flaw of *any* web-based system is that the web
designer tells me how my "desktop" should look. Using NNTP forums *I*
can choose the layout that suits me, including panes and fonts. If I
don't like the way the newsreader works, there are plenty more to
choose from. The same cannot be said for web-based forums. THe
designer tells me what I like, and they're all different.

I believe the above pretty much says why I believe web-based discussion
groups are inherently inferior. ;-)
--
Keith
Dean Kent
2003-07-25 05:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith R. Williams
I believe the above pretty much says why I believe web-based discussion
groups are inherently inferior. ;-)
Somebody told me that there actually is a way to allow the user to choose
his/her own fonts/styles/sizes/etc. using cascading style sheets. He even
showed me an example of how it worked on a reference page. Unfortunately,
I wasn't smart enough to understand how the hell it all worked, so I didn't
even try to implement it.

I'll like assembly language. Straightforward and simple. ;-)
Post by Keith R. Williams
--
Keith
a?n?g?e? (The little lost angel)
2003-07-25 12:07:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 05:43:52 GMT, "Dean Kent"
Post by Dean Kent
Somebody told me that there actually is a way to allow the user to choose
his/her own fonts/styles/sizes/etc. using cascading style sheets. He even
showed me an example of how it worked on a reference page. Unfortunately,
I wasn't smart enough to understand how the hell it all worked, so I didn't
even try to implement it.
Only to a certain extent, you can have your own style sheets defining
how you want your <b> and <td> etc etc to look like. But unless you
are going to bother to spend some time looking through each forum's
tags, figuring out what they control and writing your own style sheets
(hopefully you already know css properties) then you get that.

But the base layout is still pretty much fixed... haven't actually
looked into it yet though. Since at the moment, I'm working on a web
forum code, I'll see if I can cook up a web based thingy that actually
allows users to shift msg panes. Though that probably would involve
javascript of some sort and I really quite detest client side scripts
:/
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Paul Tiseo
2003-07-25 14:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by a?n?g?e? (The little lost angel)
But the base layout is still pretty much fixed... haven't actually
looked into it yet though. Since at the moment, I'm working on a web
forum code, I'll see if I can cook up a web based thingy that actually
allows users to shift msg panes. Though that probably would involve
javascript of some sort and I really quite detest client side scripts
:/
DHTML layering would allow you to have independent panels much
like many modern newsreaders. Would be a cool feature to a web forum
package. Otherwise, server-side layout of panels could easily be
personalized dynamically. I can think of many ways to do it.

----------------------------------------
Paul Tiseo, Systems Programmer
Research Computing Facility, Mayo Clinic
***@mayo.edu
(please remove numbers to email me)
a?n?g?e? (The little lost angel)
2003-07-26 03:35:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:24 GMT, Paul Tiseo
Post by Paul Tiseo
DHTML layering would allow you to have independent panels much
like many modern newsreaders. Would be a cool feature to a web forum
Yup it would, but like I said, it's quite a mess with no guarantees
what works on browser A would work on browser B :(
Plus the code needed would add quite a bit of overheads to the
download.

Though the situation is definitely much improved compared to when I
first wrestle with it. But still, no guarentees that everybody is
using the latest 6.x or 7.x browsers :/
Post by Paul Tiseo
package. Otherwise, server-side layout of panels could easily be
personalized dynamically. I can think of many ways to do it.
Server side can be done, but a preliminary thought over the issue is
that the choices would be limited. Perhaps similar to FreeAgent's
where you have a choice of a fixed number of arrangements.
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Paul Tiseo
2003-07-29 12:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by a?n?g?e? (The little lost angel)
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:24 GMT, Paul Tiseo
Post by Paul Tiseo
DHTML layering would allow you to have independent panels much
like many modern newsreaders. Would be a cool feature to a web forum
Yup it would, but like I said, it's quite a mess with no guarantees
what works on browser A would work on browser B :(
Well, the latest numbers show IE as an unavoidable clear majority
winner. Most numbers put IE at >85%, counting v5 and up. Unless you deal
with an esoteric subsection of the overall websurfing market, such as
Slashdot...
Post by a?n?g?e? (The little lost angel)
Plus the code needed would add quite a bit of overheads to the
download.
Asssuming no well-placed use of caching on the client? I believe
anything in a <script> tag, once downloaded, is cached client-side.

----------------------------------------
Paul Tiseo, Systems Programmer
Research Computing Facility, Mayo Clinic
***@mayo.edu
(please remove numbers to email me)
Paul Tiseo
2003-07-30 14:15:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@homer.sonictech.net>, ***@sonictech.net
says...
Do you really want to encourage that by creating code that breaks on anything
else?
Do I want to? No. Do I need to? Sometimes. Depends on the market
segement using the interface and the time/resources the project allows.
Also, the most troublesome browsers seem to be older versions of
Netscape & IE and the people running these old versions are often doing so
because they can't switch/upgrade for whatever reason.
Yet, they are often too few and far between to matter. It's the
horrible truth, unfortunately. If time is no object on your projects,
well, then, go at it! :)

----------------------------------------
Paul Tiseo, Systems Programmer
Research Computing Facility, Mayo Clinic
***@mayo.edu
(please remove numbers to email me)

CLF
2003-07-20 22:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by daytripper
[snipped]
Post by Dean Kent
It isn't the interface, nor is it the protocol. It is the content that is
important. ;-).
respectfully, I disagree. content is where you find it, and usenet is chock
full of good stuff if you know where to look. And web sites rarely provide a
"already seen that" paradigm - you end up having to browse through months of
stuff to find what's new.
And frankly I'd sooner swim with the sharks than put any faith in web-based
content...
/daytripper (i'll take usenet over any web site, any time...)
Interesting, so if I say something in a newsgroup about nucelar physics,
even though my complete and utter incompetence and lack of knowledge in
nuclear physics means I know nothing, you would believe whatever it is I
were to say even less if I posted it on a forum?
daytripper
2003-07-21 01:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by daytripper
[snipped]
Post by Dean Kent
It isn't the interface, nor is it the protocol. It is the content that
is
Post by daytripper
Post by Dean Kent
important. ;-).
respectfully, I disagree. content is where you find it, and usenet is
chock
Post by daytripper
full of good stuff if you know where to look. And web sites rarely provide
a
Post by daytripper
"already seen that" paradigm - you end up having to browse through months
of
Post by daytripper
stuff to find what's new.
And frankly I'd sooner swim with the sharks than put any faith in
web-based
Post by daytripper
content...
/daytripper (i'll take usenet over any web site, any time...)
Interesting, so if I say something in a newsgroup about nucelar physics,
even though my complete and utter incompetence and lack of knowledge in
nuclear physics means I know nothing, you would believe whatever it is I
were to say even less if I posted it on a forum?
OK, for the nitwit, I'll amend my statement: Usenet plus common sense is
generally superior to web content.

/daytripper (happy now?)
chrisv
2003-07-21 14:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Content is key for sure, that's the only reason why I ever bother with
web-based forums at all. However, in my mind usenet provides a MUCH
better method for distributing that content. Web forums seem to
provide a better method for distributing fancy smily-faces and
signatures with pictures, but not much else. :>
Some of the popular ones scroll so fast that each thread is limited to
a one-day thing. If someone doesn't check in that same day, the
thread is a couple pages back and never seen again. For certain, it's
often impossible to have a quality, multi-day discussion...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...