Usenet vs PHP forum

Did I missed something about PHP forums ?
I just don't see why they are so trendy.

Browsing a single thread take an enormous amount of time. Many pages,
not much real stuff in there. Frames, frames.. Not very exciting. Is
that "modernity" ; enclosing emails with frames and put a coloured
background ?

Browsing accross sub-forums takes another enormous amount of time.
Almost all PHP forums I know contain too many sublevels . People
managing them are so enthousiasts about with their creativity that they
forget what a forum is meant for.

I still prefer USENET which is available either with your favorite
emailer/NewsReader or through Google Groups.
I can rapidly go through all threads and pick-up interesting discussion
to follow or paticiapte into.

Morover, a PHP ".com" forum can disappear without any trace, which is
not the case with USENET.

The only advantage I see with PHP forums is the possibility to have a
special area where people introduce themselves to others.

The risk with a non-moderated USENET forum is that it can be killed by
a single folk.

Laurent

People can use whatever they want. In an earlier thread, someone said
"The Internet forum boom is over." One of the more odd things I've
ever heard here. The 200th largest internet forum has 113,000 members
and 4.58 million posts. The largest has 5.34 million members and 872
million posts. There's no boom, it's what people use.

I've been using forums for about 8 years, and this is the first
"Usenet" I've ever participated in, simply because I couldn't find a
good nordic skiing forum. This is by FAR more clunky, unorganized. and
user-unfriendly than a real forum.

What he said!

wrote:
People can use whatever they want. In an earlier thread, someone said
"The Internet forum boom is over." One of the more odd things I've
ever heard here. The 200th largest internet forum has 113,000 members
and 4.58 million posts. The largest has 5.34 million members and 872
million posts. There's no boom, it's what people use.

I've been using forums for about 8 years, and this is the first
"Usenet" I've ever participated in, simply because I couldn't find a
good nordic skiing forum. This is by FAR more clunky, unorganized. and
user-unfriendly than a real forum.

In article .com,
wrote:
I've been using forums for about 8 years, and this is the first
"Usenet" I've ever participated in, simply because I couldn't find a
good nordic skiing forum. This is by FAR more clunky, unorganized. and
user-unfriendly than a real forum.

It's probably your software, not the message distribution
mechanism.

I've got 22 years on Usenet and I still vastly prefer it to
the web-based "forums." The latter have a simple,
consistent user interface with extremely limited
capabilities beyond just showing you the posts. The former
has any user interface you choose to use from the probably
hundreds available. Most Usenet newsreaders support
killfiling and have sophisticated sorting and filtering
capabilities. The most widely-used Usenet server software
"expires" old articles, which means that you don't have
people following up 14-year-old posts (a huge problem with
nitwitbanter.com). Usenet comes out of a Unix tradition of
modular design and greater depth of capabilities; the web
stuff comes out of a web tradition of monolith design,
consistent user interface, and the permanent beginner.

I find the web stuff to be pretty annoying, and once a
discussion progresses past a couple of pages and a bunch of
people are participating it becomes really difficult to sort
out who's responding to whom and whatnot.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Morover, a PHP ".com" forum can disappear without any trace, which is
not the case with USENET.

good point

Before the web took off, Usenet was king.

I also don't see why it has faded so much.

It's the only truly public resource, isn't it? It seems like the
info-exchange of record, to me. It's searchable in a big way. It's not
private or owned.

I'm guessing that it faded largely because of the jerk factor on
unmoderated forums. At first, the grownups seemed to have ways to deal
with the jerks better but then the reality of their persistence sunk
in. I know of several good groups that have died or become farces. But
I'm not sure how to do the voting IRC thing to get moderation
going---then, too, you need a moderator. Right now I know of a couple
major groups where the moderator seems out of commission.

I personally have kept a simple approach. I've never used a filter or
killfill and don't know how. (Can you killfile with Google?) I've been
using Usenet for 10 years. I've personally posted a lot of sincere
posts intended to provoke discussion, none of which have ever been
personal or against netiquette (do we hear that word much anymore?).
I've received at least hundreds of moronic flames in response. I
suppose I should've always killfiled those who I knew only posted
incorrectly/idioticly, but again I still don't know how. I have a thick
skin but I've been suckered into irrelevant defense which is a sad
waste of time.

--JP

On 18 Dec 2006 05:07:27 -0800, wrote:

Before the web took off, Usenet was king.

I also don't see why it has faded so much.

Do you have any evidence that usenet use has faded?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Laurent wrote
USENET which is available either with your favorite
emailer/NewsReader or through Google Groups.

Yes -- if you already know to look for it.
Now how about try to find it the way most modern Net users would: by a web
search for "cross country skiing forum". On what number page of the Google
search results does rec.skiing.nordic appear?

It really does not matter how many ways that Usenet is technically superior
to other discussion venues. Nowadays what matters is that lots of people
have to _find_ it, and lots of people have to find it _entertaining_ to use
it. If you love your Usenet group, then get serious about selling it to
more people.

Morover, a PHP ".com" forum can disappear without any trace,
which is not the case with USENET.

On Usenet a forum can effectively "disappear" and leave _only_ a trace --
e.g.
news:rec.sport.skating.racing
Which shows that without current human energy, it doesn't matter what the
technology is.

And for cross-country skiing discussion, what really really matters for
engaging human energy is not PHP vs Usenet. It's 25 km of trails with snow
on them today at La Feclaz.

Ken

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
I've been using forums for about 8 years, and this is the first
"Usenet" I've ever participated in, simply because I couldn't find a
good nordic skiing forum. This is by FAR more clunky, unorganized. and
user-unfriendly than a real forum.

It's probably your software, not the message distribution
mechanism.

I've got 22 years on Usenet and I still vastly prefer it to
the web-based "forums." The latter have a simple,
consistent user interface with extremely limited
capabilities beyond just showing you the posts. The former
has any user interface you choose to use from the probably
hundreds available. Most Usenet newsreaders support
killfiling and have sophisticated sorting and filtering
capabilities. The most widely-used Usenet server software
"expires" old articles, which means that you don't have
people following up 14-year-old posts (a huge problem with
nitwitbanter.com). Usenet comes out of a Unix tradition of
modular design and greater depth of capabilities; the web
stuff comes out of a web tradition of monolith design,
consistent user interface, and the permanent beginner.

I find the web stuff to be pretty annoying, and once a
discussion progresses past a couple of pages and a bunch of
people are participating it becomes really difficult to sort
out who's responding to whom and whatnot.

I've got only about 15 years on the usenet, but with few exceptions,
when a web-based forum crops up that is in one of my interest areas, it
is better, more efficient, and more useful than the newsgroup. I've
got about 3-4 that I use regularly and I rarely visit the usenet
newsgroups in those areas anymore becuase they just aren't as good.

I looked again at the new XC forum yesterday and was very happy to see
it is probably already better than this newsgroup. More diverse and
better organized subject matter. JMHO of course. My guess (and hope)
is that by this time next year, I will hardly be looking at rsn
anymore.

As someone mentioned, a possible downside is the archives. But the
archives - at least the total, complete archives - is not an automatic
thing. Sure with the thousands of servers that carry usenet
newsgroups, it is likely that archival material will exist in
perpetuity. On the other hand, archiving by theser servers is totally
voluntary (as far as I know), and therefore is really no more certain
than the web forum being archived.

The "total" archive (now called groups.google, but originally
dejanews), is also a commercial enterprise and no more certain than any
other. Dejanews actually pretty much went under until it was saved by
google buying it (again, as far as I understand the situation). There
is at least one other archive that I am familiar with in the past
decade or so called, IIRC Remarq, which was very short lived and
represents this issue for the usenet.

So I don't buy the archive advantage arguement in favor of the usenet.

And I only visit regular forums when absolutely necessary, such as to
get advice about a specific technical problem that I haven't been able
to get an answer for via the usenet. I prefer newsgroups even though
in some cases forums and newsgroups exist for the same topic with some
crossover of participants (e.g., Opera browser). The reason is that
most forums are cumbersome, discussions are hard to follow, the advice
is no better than usenet and sometimes worse, they usually have lousy
search engines that require multiple attempts that end up in failure,
and they are many times slower (web vs email client/server).

Laurent made the appropriate point: Are you really willing to turn the
future of the chat group over to an individual who is responsible to no
one but himself? In this most recent case, it's a complete stranger, a
young bike racer with marginal relation to the x-c ski community,
someone who didn't even have the courtesy to sound out rsn first before
creating and announcing his site.

rm


"Camilo" wrote:


Melinda Shore wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
I've been using forums for about 8 years, and this is the first
"Usenet" I've ever participated in, simply because I couldn't find a
good nordic skiing forum. This is by FAR more clunky, unorganized. and
user-unfriendly than a real forum.

It's probably your software, not the message distribution
mechanism.

I've got 22 years on Usenet and I still vastly prefer it to
the web-based "forums." The latter have a simple,
consistent user interface with extremely limited
capabilities beyond just showing you the posts. The former
has any user interface you choose to use from the probably
hundreds available. Most Usenet newsreaders support
killfiling and have sophisticated sorting and filtering
capabilities. The most widely-used Usenet server software
"expires" old articles, which means that you don't have
people following up 14-year-old posts (a huge problem with
nitwitbanter.com). Usenet comes out of a Unix tradition of
modular design and greater depth of capabilities; the web
stuff comes out of a web tradition of monolith design,
consistent user interface, and the permanent beginner.

I find the web stuff to be pretty annoying, and once a
discussion progresses past a couple of pages and a bunch of
people are participating it becomes really difficult to sort
out who's responding to whom and whatnot.

I've got only about 15 years on the usenet, but with few exceptions,
when a web-based forum crops up that is in one of my interest areas, it
is better, more efficient, and more useful than the newsgroup. I've
got about 3-4 that I use regularly and I rarely visit the usenet
newsgroups in those areas anymore becuase they just aren't as good.

I looked again at the new XC forum yesterday and was very happy to see
it is probably already better than this newsgroup. More diverse and
better organized subject matter. JMHO of course. My guess (and hope)
is that by this time next year, I will hardly be looking at rsn
anymore.

As someone mentioned, a possible downside is the archives. But the
archives - at least the total, complete archives - is not an automatic
thing. Sure with the thousands of servers that carry usenet
newsgroups, it is likely that archival material will exist in
perpetuity. On the other hand, archiving by theser servers is totally
voluntary (as far as I know), and therefore is really no more certain
than the web forum being archived.

The "total" archive (now called groups.google, but originally
dejanews), is also a commercial enterprise and no more certain than any
other. Dejanews actually pretty much went under until it was saved by
google buying it (again, as far as I understand the situation). There
is at least one other archive that I am familiar with in the past
decade or so called, IIRC Remarq, which was very short lived and
represents this issue for the usenet.

So I don't buy the archive advantage arguement in favor of the usenet.