Text 4864, 176 rader
Skriven 2006-07-26 12:59:00 av Robert E Starr JR (5361.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Why has this group no
=================================
* * * This message was from Matt Ion to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
* * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *
-----------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <wzGxg.245000$IK3.75190@pd7tw1no>
@REPLY: <44c64c29$1_1@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>
Neil B wrote:
> Jay Denebeim wrote:
>
>> In article <1153557987.533672.233620@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> <jonfrain@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm just curious as to why the moderators and JMS have chosen to
>>> remain here and not move to more modern means such as Web based
>>> forums. Is it purely for nostalgia?
>>
>>
>> Excuse me? Web based forums suck rocks. First off they're slow,
>> second they are not nearly as easy to navigate, third they are much
>> more ephemeral data will be eventually lost, fourth they are usually
>> not useable by lynx which makes them inaccessable to blind people,
>> fifth they are not robust take out one site and the web board goes
>> away.
>
>
> I'm a bit bemused by the wholesale dissing of web forums here... perhaps
> my idea of a web forum differs from everyone else's..? If so, ignore the
> next few paragraphs! (BTW none of which is to say that I think RASTB5M
> *should* switch to a web forum, but I just have to counter some of the
> responses!)
Heheh, I've been thinking the same thing myself. Personally, I tend to prefer
the Usenet method, but web forums do have their place as well, and "modern"
ones
are certainly nowhere near as bad as some here are making them out to be...
> I'll go with the accessibility issue, it's almost a dead cert, although
> I don't honestly know for sure. Robustness must also be taken into
> account, but server down-time should be a rare and easily remedied
> problem (this board has had its fair share of missing posts etc., I
> would hardly call this place 'robust' some of the time either).
The moderation process does definitely increase the "falability" of this system
- posts aren't too often lost, but they are regularly delayed... sometimes VERY
delayed.
> Slow? Not in my experience, but granted for forums with hundreds or
> thousands of messages a day, you have to put some decent horsepower
> behind them to make them run smoothly. Not really an issue for RASTB5M.
> Any half-decent server would handle RASTB5M without even getting short
> of breath.
Agreed. Although in general, Usenet is FAR LESS affected by things that can
choke a web forum... particularly an overloaded server, or simply a busy
pipeline to that server choking traffic. With Usenet, most people (I assume)
are using their ISP's newsserver, which usually provides a solid, fast, direct
connection to the message source, and if that server becomes unavailable, there
are other open free and pay servers, as well as Google Groups... in short, it's
more a matter of redundancy rather than reliability.
> Not as easy to navigate? Erm, eh? Someone earlier in the thread seemed
> to think that threaded web-forums didn't exist... again, unless my idea
> of a web forum is dramatically off-base, threaded forums are the norm.
> Hierarchical conversations, new post alerts, etc. all make navigation a
> breeze.
Agreed here as well. Some of the more advanced forums give multiple options
for
threaded vs. flat viewing with numerous levels in between. I think one of the
best I've seen in this regard is cdmaforums.com (a site for CDMA wireless phone
users). As an added advantage, the threading is effectively impossible to
break, something that can happen quite easily on a Usenet thread, as we've
often
seen.
> Data will eventually be lost? How so? It exists as long as the server is
> archived, as well as on the hard drive of anyone who wants to subscribe
> to it on a message-by-message basis.
This of course, depends on the person setting up and/or running the server
having a good backup and recovery strategy in place... in this regard, the
Usenet's redundancy is definitely a plus. Web forums CAN be very reliable, but
aren't always set up that way.
> Now having talked about some of the cons, let's consider the pro's:
>
> 1. Ease of use. A lot of people have said that web forums are clunky,
> slow, and difficult to use. I can only theories that they don't go to
> the same 20-or-so places I frequent on a daily basis. Modern web-forums
> are slick and many of them offer a lot of customisability.
True.
> 2. Uniformity. Formatting and posting styles tend to converge when
> everyone uses the same UI. Quoted text and spoiler-obfuscating tools
> only add to the appeal.
True.
> 3. Moderation tools. A thread was 'verbally locked' only last week, but
> people still kept right on posting. That wouldn't happen on a web forum
> - once it's locked, it's locked. Mods can also create stickies with
> often-asked-for information (FAQs, news on JMS projects & cons, etc.)
> which will always be front-and-center as long as needed.
Also true.
> 4. Powerful archiving and searching. Want to find all posts by a user?
> Block all posts by a user? Find a thread you want to review? Bookmark
> old threads as favourites? Find that JMS quote? I certainly can't do
> most of that in Thunderbird, I have to go to Google; and being a web
> front-end on a USENET archive, Google Groups IS slow and clunky.
Also, most "modern" forum systems give you functions like... finding all your
own posts... replies to your posts... quick display of messages posted since
your last visit. SOME newsreaders allow this (Outlook Express will highlight
your own posts; Thunderbird won't AS SUCH, you need to create a custom filter),
others don't. And again, those that don't support proper threading can break
some of these functions, such as following replies to your posts.
> 5. RSS integration. Effectively recreates the USENET 'feel' if you
> really want it, and a rock-solid standard which you can subscribe to
> from a whole bunch of applications.
I can get a number of different apps to give me RSS feeds on my Palm Treo :)
On the other hand, doesn't Google Groups provide RSS feeds of Usenet groups as
well?
> 6. Accessibility. I don't have to have a Thunderbird set up, configured,
> and customised just the way I like it. The web forum retains my
> preferences and they follow me around.
This, I do like.... I got a week behind in rastbm while I was away on vacation
(largely missed the whole "I'm gone" thread) because I had only other peoples'
computers to use, which I wouldn't want to mess with setting up a newsreader,
and even if I did, it wouldn't know which messages I'd already read - I'd be
back to seeing EVERY message kept by their ISP's newsserver. My web-based
forums, on the other hand, I managed to keep up with nightly.
> Yep, it's fair to say I like my web forums.
Gee, I never woulda guessed :)
I'd say overall, sitting at home on my own PC, I generally prefer the whole
Usenet thing over web forums... but there are exceptions to every rule, and a
time and a place for everything, and probably a half-dozen other cliches that
could apply.
Like you, I'm not advocating rastbm change or go anywhere anytime soon... I'm
just helping to address a lot of misinformation being tossed around here :)
Oh... someone else later in the thread also mentioned all the flashing and
blinking and crap... once again, almost all "modern" forum systems allow such
features to be enabled or disable on both a global level by the admin, and on
an
individual level by the users (the admin may elect to allow formatting codes; I
can usually elect to have the system not display them or their effects to me).
One other thing I do like with web forums: email notifications, where the
system
will send me an email whenever someone replies to me, or posts on a thread I've
posted to or am monitoring, or leaves me a private message, etc.
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|