🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <xlxd7o2ue1q.fsf@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
  Matt Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "Don" == Don Wallace <me@donwallace.com> writes:
>
>   Don> I agree with your analysis of usenet (arcane and buried) versus
>   Don> web based discussions (open.)
>
> This is amazing -- it's exactly *backward*.
>
> Usenet is everywhere.  No ISP with a clue would dare offer Internet
> access without including Usenet.

That's like saying no ISP with a clue would dare offer Internet access
without including the World Wide Web.  Completely accurate- and
completely irrelevant.  As you know, not all newsgroups are carried by
all ISP's.  Whether or not an ISP carries *any* newsgroup is really
none of my concern.  As someone who would like to start a discussion
forum (or a few), however, the promulgation of new newsgroups does
concern me.  As I explained, it's also rather daunting.

> Web-based discussions are exactly
> wrong, because:
>  o Clients aren't available to present what's there in any sort of
>    useful way.

Which does not matter to 95% of readers, so long as the server software
is intuitive.

>  o Everything is server-side, thus effectively killing any control
>    that the client has over presentation beyond basics like colors and
>    fonts.

See above.

>  o There is only _one_ server, a single point of failure for the
>    entire system.  If the server goes down, if the network gets
>    flooded, if the upstream cable gets cut, or any one of a huge list
>    of other things happen, you're finished.  Usenet works on the model
>    that each site has its own server; large sites have different
>    servers for different groups.  Thus, it's always there.  If one
>    site has a blowout, only those folks are affected, and everything
>    will spool for them in the meantime.

All well and good, but not terribly important for a simple discussion
forum.

>  o It's extremely inconvenient to go through the rigamarole of moving
>    your web browser over to some site, navigating through whatever
>    nonsense is there that stands in the way of the discussion.

Which goes to say that you won't be participating, I assume.
Regrettable, but then many others on web-based fora don't think it's
all that inconvenient.  Good server design (not claiming I have it) and
use of the browser's "favorite" option should overcome much of this.

>  o There is no good way to compose what you're writing.  Formatting is
>    almost completely lost beyond basic paragraph breaks.  How does one
>    invoke a spellchecker?

Get it right the first time. ;-)  Actually, spellchecking is available
on several discussion sites.  Other than that, any composition software
is chiefly a creature of habit anyway.  If you're not terribly picky
(or if you're new to Internet discussion), this isn't a great issue.

>  o There is no useful way to control what you see.  How do you prevent
>    seeing articles from people whom you find annoying?  How do you
>    kill threads that you don't want to see anymore?  There are NO
>    mechanisms for this sort of thing beyond what the moderator or the
>    host of the site will and will not allow.  That means if the signal
>    to noise ratio gets bad, you have no hope of being able to find the
>    signal among the noise.  You just have to leave.  One man's signal
>    is another's noise.  Thus, on another level, web-based discussions
>    do not scale.

This is perhaps the best argument, but it also demonstrates the
advantages of newsgroups over mailing lists.  As no new newsgroup is
going to be created nowadays without first being a mailing list, I
think we only need demonstrate the superiority of web-based discussions
to mailing lists.  Ironically, I just unsubscribed from a mailing list
this evening because of low signal to noise.  I would not perceive this
to be as great a problem on a web site, where messages do not clog my
mailbox and I can easily take some time away from discussion if I
choose.

> I agree with your other observations about the utility of Usenet, but
> I think that the primary advantages are technical: stability and
> utility.  That it is better established is irrelevant, except to point
> out that the Web offers no advantage in terms of accessibility.

When comparing media for established discussions, you are absolutely
correct- there is no advantage offered by the Web in terms of
accessibility.  However, there is a slight advantage when dealing with
nascient discussions to using Web-based.  This has everything to do
with how Usenet is promulgated.  You are at the mercy of your ISP's
news admin and every admin "upstream" before a particular newsgroup
reaches your hands.  Once accepted, there is little to prevent you from
enjoying that newsgroup in the future.  The trick, however, is getting
it to you in the first place.

As I mentioned, technical advantages are not terribly important to new
users.  Even experienced users will sacrifice these advantages if the
website provides a level of discussion not found elsewhere.
--
Jeff Billman
Columbus, OH


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.