f



IBM PC Hardware Moderator Needed?

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


0
GoLiveSue
7/12/2003 4:42:09 PM
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips 2946 articles. 2 followers. Post Follow

17 Replies
696 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 11

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19826e22c127b46f98a536@enews.newsguy.com...
>
> 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


0
Dean
7/19/2003 5:28:35 PM
"Tony Hill" <hilla@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:3j9jhvgf5gm0dnq5r8rp930hafrfju9i2e@4ax.com...
>
> 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

>


0
Dean
7/19/2003 11:52:38 PM
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:28:35 GMT, "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:
[snipped]
>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...)
0
daytripper
7/20/2003 2:13:35 AM
"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0hujhvci02hiocf2ub6ssu3aats4t0s0ia@4ax.com...
>
> 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)  ;-).

>
> /daytripper (i'll take usenet over any web site, any time...)



0
Dean
7/20/2003 2:25:49 AM
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:25:49 GMT, "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:

>"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:0hujhvci02hiocf2ub6ssu3aats4t0s0ia@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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)  ;-).

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...)
0
daytripper
7/20/2003 3:05:54 AM
"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0hujhvci02hiocf2ub6ssu3aats4t0s0ia@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:28:35 GMT, "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com>
wrote:
> [snipped]
> >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?


0
CLF
7/20/2003 10:25:43 PM
"Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote in message
news:QjoSa.2374$qC2.57935980@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> "daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:r81khv0025b8ho5mg233rcd9dfogncvaej@4ax.com...
> > >
> >
> > 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.  ;-)
>
> >
> > 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?


0
CLF
7/20/2003 10:27:52 PM
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:52:38 GMT, "Dean Kent"
<dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:
>"Tony Hill" <hilla@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
>news:3j9jhvgf5gm0dnq5r8rp930hafrfju9i2e@4ax.com...
>> 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.

>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!

>> 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? :>

0
Tony
7/20/2003 10:41:01 PM
"Tony Hill" <hilla@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:e45mhvov9ng2tb8o0d81v4im0id7l74bop@4ax.com...
>
> 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
> cutting and pasting from other messages,

So can that...

 or sorting messages by
> date/thread/author/whatever,

So can that...

 or searching through headers, or
> searching in a message,

Already can do that on most...

 or referring back to a message I posted three
> months ago,

That can be done also...

 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.

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.

> 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'

>
>
> 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.  :-).

>
> 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
>


0
Dean
7/21/2003 12:44:02 AM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:44:02 GMT, "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:

>"Tony Hill" <hilla@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
>news:e45mhvov9ng2tb8o0d81v4im0id7l74bop@4ax.com...
[sniped]
>> 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.)
0
daytripper
7/21/2003 1:32:19 AM
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:25:43 GMT, "CLF" <nospam@yahooo.com> wrote:

>"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:0hujhvci02hiocf2ub6ssu3aats4t0s0ia@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:28:35 GMT, "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com>
>wrote:
>> [snipped]
>> >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?

OK, for the nitwit, I'll amend my statement: Usenet plus common sense is
generally superior to web content.

/daytripper (happy now?)
0
daytripper
7/21/2003 1:35:23 AM
"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eigmhv4rkcksojfauqhao39kupsgb6mdgh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:44:02 GMT, "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >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>

>
> /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  ;-).


0
Dean
7/21/2003 2:22:57 AM
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:25:12 -0400, Tony Hill <hilla@uoguelph.ca>
wrote:

>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...

0
chrisv
7/21/2003 2:32:15 PM
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ngunhv0vhcvcmvma2lrjm4v8qf7e9gdn3l@4ax.com...
>
> 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




0
Dean
7/21/2003 7:38:54 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:44:02 GMT, "Dean Kent"
<dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote:
>"Tony Hill" <hilla@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
>news:e45mhvov9ng2tb8o0d81v4im0id7l74bop@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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.

>> 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.

>   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.

>> 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.

0
Tony
7/22/2003 4:49:47 AM
"Tony Hill" <hilla@uoguelph.ca> wrote in message
news:tgdphvk27efurv4lkl55mttd8n5oo513v4@4ax.com...
>
> 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)."

>
> 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.).

>
> 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.

> 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.

>  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.

> 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.

>  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.

>
> 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

>


0
Dean
7/23/2003 2:06:51 AM
In article <mHGSa.2572$Qb.75073684@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, 
dkent@realworldtech.com says...
> 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
tiseo128.paul23@mayo.edu
(please remove numbers to email me)
0
Paul
7/23/2003 6:02:03 PM
Reply: