Text 4912, 224 rader
Skriven 2006-07-26 21:57:00 av Robert E Starr JR (5409.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Why has this group no
=================================
* * * This message was from Christophe Bachmann to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m *
* *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <44c79cdf$0$855$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>
@REPLY: <wzGxg.245000$IK3.75190@pd7tw1no>


Matt Ion a écrit :
> 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,

That is only true for home-hosted forums, when you get a good 
professional hosting forums are not so slow, however they are always 
intrinsically slower than Usenet because they send a lot of extraneous 
material (formatting, avatars, ...) over the data.

>>> second they are not nearly as easy to navigate, 

That is purely a subjective question, most forums have very useful tools.

>>>third they are much more ephemeral data will be eventually lost, 

That again is only true of home-hosted forums, professionally hosted 
forums will have full backup features incorporated.

>>>fourth they are usually
>>> not useable by lynx which makes them inaccessable to blind people,

That is AFAIK true.

>>> fifth they are not robust take out one site and the web board goes
>>> away.

Once again, a professional host will be down only as infrequently as 
your professional news-feed. And while one site can bring down the 
entire forum this is not anymore a real concern.

>>
>>
>> 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...
>
Usenet and Web-Forums don't have the same uses, and are rather 
complementary than concurrent in my view. If I want a public, unlimited 
medium, then I prefer Usenet. If I want a medium with good 
authentication and private sections I take a Forum.

>> 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.
> 
True, but less so than can be afforded by the custom rules one can 
set-up on a good news-reader.

>> 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.
>
Thunderbird is a fine tool and offers quite unlimited customisability, 
more so with a few well chosen extensions. And all the examples you 
quote can be dons in stock Thunderbird.

> 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.
>

That is indeed a little hassle, but you can obviate it :
- Take a thunderbird on a USB Key
- Use Google-Groups or another Usenet to Web bridge while you are on the 
road (You can set one up yourself if you dislike Google)
- Create a custom filter that marks all posts from before the date you 
last read the group as read.

>> 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.
> 
> 
-- 
Greetings, Salutations,
Guiraud Belissen, Château du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France
                                                                               
                                 
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)