 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> In the end I just gave up, the groups I frequented died out as people moved
> >> to web-based forums
> >
> > Why do people do that?
> Because for ISPs, newsgroups are a cost, whereas for forums, they're either
> Not My Problem if it's on someone else's server, or a source of revenue if
> it's ad-supported, or you paying for only exactly the forums you want otherwise.
I didn't ask why ISPs are dropping support. I asked why people are moving
from a more versatile medium to a more restricted one.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
>> In the end I just gave up, the groups I frequented died out as people moved
>> to web-based forums
>
> Why do people do that?
I'd guess it's primarily not so much an issue of people actively
/moving/ from usenet to web-based forums, but rather /new/ folks never
moving to usenet in the first place (heck, who of the newest generation
of internet users /knows/ about usenet anyway?), and nobody replenishing
the user base of usenet. So it's "Fading away".
> This trend of everything going to WWW just sucks. Most internet users
> don't actually know that there's something *else* than WWW out there.
Exactly. But for them it doesn't suck, because they don't know better.
There's also some benefit to it, too: You don't need different
/software/ to access it. All you need is your web browser.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> The best system I ever worked with was the various BBS networks
> (Fidonet, etc). Much better than USENET, much better than web groups,
> much better than mailing lists...
Ah, good old Fight-o-Net... yeah, those were the days!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> There's also some benefit to it, too: You don't need different
> /software/ to access it. All you need is your web browser.
Not much help, given that most forums are rather different from other
forums, so there really isn't so much difference from using different
programs.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:16:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> > scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> >> In the end I just gave up, the groups I frequented died out as
>> >> people moved to web-based forums
>> >
>> > Why do people do that?
>
>> Because for ISPs, newsgroups are a cost, whereas for forums, they're
>> either Not My Problem if it's on someone else's server, or a source of
>> revenue if it's ad-supported, or you paying for only exactly the forums
>> you want otherwise.
>
> I didn't ask why ISPs are dropping support. I asked why people are
> moving
> from a more versatile medium to a more restricted one.
Which is the question I answered. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I didn't ask why ISPs are dropping support. I asked why people are moving
> from a more versatile medium to a more restricted one.
Same reason.
1) ISPs are dropping support. There aren't many mediums that are less
versatile than a newsgroup server that isn't running.
2) People starting new newsgroups or who think they have information of
value don't start it on a newsgroup server, but on a web server where they
can monetize it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> 4) Moderators often move, merge or delete threads that are put in the
> wrong place, or ask already-asked questions. This makes
> searching/browsing much easier
Unless you find it via google and the only answer is "I moved this into the
proper forum" without any indication of what the proper forum is or where it
linked to.
>> With usenet you don't need any accounts and passwords,
> Which means lots of spam.
Not really. It used to be that there was a lot of spam, then someone wrote
code to cancel spam based on how often and how widely it had been posted
(i.e., regardless of content). Then someone took that and abused it to
silence people they didn't like. Then ISPs stopped paying attention to
cancel messages due to that, and the spam came back.
> And then be told to read the group's FAQ (how are you meant to know
> where that is beforehand?)
Because it's cached on the server, just like in a forum. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:18:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Unless you find it via google and the only answer is "I moved this into
> the proper forum" without any indication of what the proper forum is or
> where it linked to.
Most modern web-based forum software doesn't leave a pointer, it just
moves the message to the new forum. vBulletin and FUDForum both handle
it that way.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:18:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Unless you find it via google and the only answer is "I moved this into
>> the proper forum" without any indication of what the proper forum is or
>> where it linked to.
>
> Most modern web-based forum software doesn't leave a pointer, it just
> moves the message to the new forum.
Well, yes, and therein lies the problem. I've seen this happen dozens of
times. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:51:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:18:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Unless you find it via google and the only answer is "I moved this
>>> into the proper forum" without any indication of what the proper forum
>>> is or where it linked to.
>>
>> Most modern web-based forum software doesn't leave a pointer, it just
>> moves the message to the new forum.
>
> Well, yes, and therein lies the problem. I've seen this happen dozens of
> times. :-)
It's not really a problem, though - the result is found in the new
location unless it took a long time for someone to decide to move it.
Generally (in my experience) moves happen very quickly.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but that "dozens of times" out of "millions
of messages" is statistically small.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> http://www.newsparrot.co.uk/
freenews.netfront.net seems to work ok. Thanks.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Not saying it doesn't happen, but that "dozens of times" out of "millions
> of messages" is statistically small.
Maybe it's the kind of questions I ask. And I don't really surf forums like
I surf newsgroups. It's just too annoying of an interface, so I only ever
google.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-10-2009 10:00, scott wrote:
>>> In the end I just gave up, the groups I frequented died out as people
>>> moved
>>> to web-based forums
>>
>> Why do people do that?
>
> I think they are better for many reasons:
> 1) You don't need access to a usenet server
> 2) No spam, or very little spam that usually gets deleted
> 3) They are usually way better organised into sub- and sub-sub-forums,
> rather than just a huge list of threads
> 4) Moderators often move, merge or delete threads that are put in the
> wrong place, or ask already-asked questions. This makes
> searching/browsing much easier
> 5) On some forums moderators often change the subject line to make
> searching easier, obviously this makes searching easier
> 6) "Sticky" threads always appear at the top of the list with things
> like the FAQ and anything else related to the subject
> 7) Many other useful functions like chatting/messaging directly with
> another user, seeing how many posts they've made, seeing how many people
> have read your post, etc.
> 8) More flexibility in presentation of posts, eg including images in
> certain places, text effects etc
> 9) Everyone gets the same experience by default, none of this "oh you
> need to turn on monospace fonts" or "don't top post you idiot" or "this
> is NOT a binary group" or "fix your line-wrap" or "DO NOT USE HTML" or
> "don't quote his entire post and add one word to the end" from all the
> net nannies that patrol every usenet group.
Does the fact that some usenet groups are used to exchange illegal
downloads also play a role?
Still wondering if this trend means that at some point nntp support is
stripped from mail browsers like Thunderbird and what that would mean to
this forum. I know there is a web interface, but I find NNTP much more
convenient.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:20:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Not saying it doesn't happen, but that "dozens of times" out of
>> "millions of messages" is statistically small.
>
> Maybe it's the kind of questions I ask. And I don't really surf forums
> like I surf newsgroups. It's just too annoying of an interface, so I
> only ever google.
Same here, but I moderate over in the openSUSE forums, so I have an
understanding of how the moderation in such forums is done. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
news:4ace104d@news.povray.org...
> I didn't ask why ISPs are dropping support. I asked why people are moving
> from a more versatile medium to a more restricted one.
Because usenet forums lack the basic community-oriented features that
internet users have come to appreciate. Web forums support features such as
user profiles (pics/avatars, personal galleries, links to other on-line
communities), karma/favorite/quality systems, community IM/chat, user
hierarchies, user monitoring, sticky posts, polls, tags etc. The ability to
post in BBcode is a plus too.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:29:05 +0200, "Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
> Web forums support features such as user profiles (pics/avatars,
Can you imagine the fun avatars would be here? :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Does the fact that some usenet groups are used to exchange illegal
> downloads also play a role?
Yes. That's basically what killed the newsgroups at the ISPs. The fact that
their users expected them to carry hundreds of gigabytes of ripped blu-ray
DVDs on a medium designed for text messages.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/09 15:34, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:29:05 +0200, "Gilles Tran"<gil### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
>
>> Web forums support features such as user profiles (pics/avatars,
>
> Can you imagine the fun avatars would be here? :-)
If they're not raytraced, you will be booted from the newsgroups...
--
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/09 11:22, Warp wrote:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> There's also some benefit to it, too: You don't need different
>> /software/ to access it. All you need is your web browser.
>
> Not much help, given that most forums are rather different from other
> forums, so there really isn't so much difference from using different
> programs.
Most web forums are easier to "learn" than most newsgroup readers.
--
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/09 03:00, scott wrote:
> 3) They are usually way better organised into sub- and sub-sub-forums,
> rather than just a huge list of threads
Newsgroups let you do that. You can subcategorize.
And reading threads using a newsreader is much easier than on any web
site I've seen except perhaps Reddit.
> 8) More flexibility in presentation of posts, eg including images in
> certain places, text effects etc
> 9) Everyone gets the same experience by default, none of this "oh you
> need to turn on monospace fonts" or "don't top post you idiot" or "this
> is NOT a binary group" or "fix your line-wrap" or "DO NOT USE HTML" or
> "don't quote his entire post and add one word to the end" from all the
> net nannies that patrol every usenet group.
Google Wave to the rescue?
--
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/09 11:16, Warp wrote:
> I didn't ask why ISPs are dropping support. I asked why people are moving
> from a more versatile medium to a more restricted one.
Beyond the reasons I mentioned elsewhere, there's the simple reason
that most can't figure out how newsgroups work (i.e. getting a
newsreader, etc). While registering for forums is cumbersome, the steps
are straightforward.
--
(((((((HYPNOTIC)))))))(((((((TAGLINE)))))))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:17:23 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>On 10/08/09 15:34, Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:29:05 +0200, "Gilles Tran"<gil### [at] gmailcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Web forums support features such as user profiles (pics/avatars,
>>
>> Can you imagine the fun avatars would be here? :-)
>
> If they're not raytraced, you will be booted from the newsgroups...
Quite right! Pall.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, yes, and therein lies the problem. I've seen this happen dozens of
> times. :-)
That's what the "show latest updated threads" page is for :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/8/2009 11:21 AM, clipka wrote:
> Neeum Zawan schrieb:
>
>> The best system I ever worked with was the various BBS networks
>> (Fidonet, etc). Much better than USENET, much better than web groups,
>> much better than mailing lists...
>
> Ah, good old Fight-o-Net... yeah, those were the days!
Heh Memories ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> That's what the "show latest updated threads" page is for :-)
If I'm searching on google, what makes you think I'm finding threads from
this year, let alone "latest updated"? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's what the "show latest updated threads" page is for :-)
>
> If I'm searching on google, what makes you think I'm finding threads from
> this year, let alone "latest updated"? :-)
I assume that if you noticed a thread had been moved into a different
category, you'd be visiting the forum regularly. Unless you were unlucky
and the thread was years old but only moved a few days ago and Google hadn't
found the newly moved version yet (then I guess you could use that forum's
search feature, or simply view Google's cached version).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> That's what the "show latest updated threads" page is for :-)
>>
>> If I'm searching on google, what makes you think I'm finding threads
>> from this year, let alone "latest updated"? :-)
>
> I assume that if you noticed a thread had been moved into a different
> category, you'd be visiting the forum regularly.
No. I said all I find is someone who posts "Your thread was in the wrong
place. I moved it to the right place" without any indication of where the
"right" place is.
@Wheee. Around in circles.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:47:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> No. I said all I find is someone who posts "Your thread was in the wrong
> place. I moved it to the right place" without any indication of where
> the "right" place is.
Search by username and approximate date (from the move message),
generally would give you an idea of what they were talking about. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> 3) They are usually way better organised into sub- and sub-sub-forums,
> rather than just a huge list of threads
Yeah right.
In NNTP, you'd create povray.radiosity. In a web forum, there's a
"The official 'I need help with radiosity' thread" with ten thousand posts.
> 6) "Sticky" threads always appear at the top of the list with things like
> the FAQ and anything else related to the subject
Wrong tool for the job. Get a wiki!
I have never been on usenet, but I very much prefer private NNTP servers
like this one to a web-based forum.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:25:00 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> In NNTP, you'd create povray.radiosity. In a web forum, there's a "The
> official 'I need help with radiosity' thread" with ten thousand posts.
That depends on the web forum software and administrators understanding
of how to set up what they want. Some forums treat a "thread" as a
subforum, but most that I visit don't do that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4ad3bace@news.povray.org...
>> 6) "Sticky" threads always appear at the top of the list with things like
>> the FAQ and anything else related to the subject
>
> Wrong tool for the job. Get a wiki!
If sticky posts were possible in beta-test there would be one titled "Why
are betas time-limited" and another one titled "How to bypass the time limit
on betas", which would prevent having the same discussion over and over. I
understand that NNTP has its strengths for certain types of discussions
(namely the long-winded rambling kind we have here) but there are very
practical reasons for the popularity of web forums.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> which would prevent having the same discussion over and over.
Bwa ha ha ha ha!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 3) They are usually way better organised into sub- and sub-sub-forums,
>> rather than just a huge list of threads
>
> Yeah right.
You obviously visit forums that are badly moderated then, the ones I used a
very well laid out. Example: http://www.toytowngermany.com/forum/
> In NNTP, you'd create povray.radiosity.
That would be excellent, we should also have povray.general.lighting,
p.g.textures, p.g.csg, p.g.whatever and the most important point, posts
should be moved if they are made in the wrong group, and the subjects should
be changed if they don't give a good description of the content. Does this
ever happen in NNTP? No. Will it ever happen? No.
> In a web forum, there's a
> "The official 'I need help with radiosity' thread" with ten thousand
> posts.
Err, not based on my experience, there would be a "radiosity" sub-forum,
with a few locked stickies and then posts would have meaningful titles and
not generic ones like "i need help".
>> 6) "Sticky" threads always appear at the top of the list with things like
>> the FAQ and anything else related to the subject
>
> Wrong tool for the job. Get a wiki!
Sure, some stickies might link to a wiki, but in NNTP you can't have
stickies. Actually you could post with a date 20 years in the future, but
that would depend on how each user has their client set up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Sure, some stickies might link to a wiki, but in NNTP you can't have
> stickies.
Yes you can. The FAQ gets posted automatically every week. Surprise, it's
sticky! :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:17:49 +0200, scott wrote:
> posts
> should be moved if they are made in the wrong group, and the subjects
> should be changed if they don't give a good description of the content.
Actually, as a moderator of forums that are available both on the web and
via NNTP, I dislike the moving of threads (because it doesn't reflect
through the NNTP side) or changing the subjects. That promotes IMHO lazy
thinking on the part of the users, because they don't have to get it
right.
I prefer to redirect the users and make them do the work, that way the
next time, they'll think about where to post, even if only to reduce the
amount of work they have to do.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually, as a moderator of forums that are available both on the web and
> via NNTP, I dislike the moving of threads (because it doesn't reflect
> through the NNTP side)
Is it impossible to move threads on NNTP? I guess not if the thread has
already spread around the world...
> or changing the subjects. That promotes IMHO lazy
> thinking on the part of the users, because they don't have to get it
> right.
On the forum I use you always get a PM from a moderator to say that they
have modified your subject (automatically sent probably), and it includes
guidelines of how to write a useful subject line - ie do not write "Need a
function" in pov.general, but put "Nonlinear spherical-like function needed"
in pov.general.isosurfaces. It makes it much more pleasant for people
browsing the forums or search results (where only the subject line of each
thread is displayed).
> I prefer to redirect the users and make them do the work, that way the
> next time, they'll think about where to post, even if only to reduce the
> amount of work they have to do.
Yes, that could work too. Or give them 48 hours to improve the subject text
else they get banned for a while :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sure, some stickies might link to a wiki, but in NNTP you can't have
>> stickies.
>
> Yes you can. The FAQ gets posted automatically every week. Surprise, it's
> sticky! :-)
If you post a FAQ to an NNTP group, every time someone posts a new thread
the FAQ will move down one place - that is not sticky!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> If you post a FAQ to an NNTP group, every time someone posts a new
> thread the FAQ will move down one place - that is not sticky!
NNTP doesn't have an "order".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:44:17 +0200, scott wrote:
>> Actually, as a moderator of forums that are available both on the web
>> and via NNTP, I dislike the moving of threads (because it doesn't
>> reflect through the NNTP side)
>
> Is it impossible to move threads on NNTP? I guess not if the thread has
> already spread around the world...
On the backend, most NNTP servers do not provide this functionality. A
"move" is not actually a move, but a cancel/repost or a supercede of
individual messages.
>> or changing the subjects. That promotes IMHO lazy thinking on the part
>> of the users, because they don't have to get it right.
>
> On the forum I use you always get a PM from a moderator to say that they
> have modified your subject (automatically sent probably), and it
> includes guidelines of how to write a useful subject line - ie do not
> write "Need a function" in pov.general, but put "Nonlinear
> spherical-like function needed" in pov.general.isosurfaces. It makes it
> much more pleasant for people browsing the forums or search results
> (where only the subject line of each thread is displayed).
It might be that that happens, I may need to play more in my vBulletin
sandbox forums.
>> I prefer to redirect the users and make them do the work, that way the
>> next time, they'll think about where to post, even if only to reduce
>> the amount of work they have to do.
>
> Yes, that could work too. Or give them 48 hours to improve the subject
> text else they get banned for a while :-D
LOL, that seems heavy-handed to me, but different forums do it different
ways. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If you post a FAQ to an NNTP group, every time someone posts a new
>> thread the FAQ will move down one place - that is not sticky!
>
> NNTP doesn't have an "order".
How can threads be sticky then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> If you post a FAQ to an NNTP group, every time someone posts a new
>>> thread the FAQ will move down one place - that is not sticky!
>>
>> NNTP doesn't have an "order".
>
> How can threads be sticky then?
By reposting them at intervals shorter than the expiration date.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> NNTP doesn't have an "order".
>>
>> How can threads be sticky then?
>
> By reposting them at intervals shorter than the expiration date.
Sticky means they stick in place - not that they don't expire.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>>> NNTP doesn't have an "order".
>>>
>>> How can threads be sticky then?
>>
>> By reposting them at intervals shorter than the expiration date.
>
> Sticky means they stick in place - not that they don't expire.
Then that would be up to your client, wouldn't it?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:15:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> If you post a FAQ to an NNTP group, every time someone posts a new
>> thread the FAQ will move down one place - that is not sticky!
>
> NNTP doesn't have an "order".
Actually, it does. Each message is uniquely identified with a message ID
and a date stamp, and on the server the headers are served up in
numerical order.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:32:22 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>>>> NNTP doesn't have an "order".
>>>>
>>>> How can threads be sticky then?
>>>
>>> By reposting them at intervals shorter than the expiration date.
>>
>> Sticky means they stick in place - not that they don't expire.
>
> Then that would be up to your client, wouldn't it?
Only if your client caches the articles. Not all clients do.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:32:22 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> scott wrote:
>>>>>> NNTP doesn't have an "order".
>>>>> How can threads be sticky then?
>>>> By reposting them at intervals shorter than the expiration date.
>>> Sticky means they stick in place - not that they don't expire.
>> Then that would be up to your client, wouldn't it?
> Only if your client caches the articles. Not all clients do.
But that would be up to the server to cache the article. That's why it gets
reposted before it expires.
Look, back in NNTP days, everyone knew to look for the FAQ in the subject
lines. Nowadays on web forums, they know to look for the FAQ in sticky
posts. It's not enough of a difference to make any difference.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:43:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:32:22 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> scott wrote:
>>>>>>> NNTP doesn't have an "order".
>>>>>> How can threads be sticky then?
>>>>> By reposting them at intervals shorter than the expiration date.
>>>> Sticky means they stick in place - not that they don't expire.
>>> Then that would be up to your client, wouldn't it?
>> Only if your client caches the articles. Not all clients do.
>
> But that would be up to the server to cache the article. That's why it
> gets reposted before it expires.
>
> Look, back in NNTP days, everyone knew to look for the FAQ in the
> subject lines. Nowadays on web forums, they know to look for the FAQ in
> sticky posts. It's not enough of a difference to make any difference.
It makes a difference to people not versed in NNTP. That's the point
that's being made.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> It makes a difference to people not versed in NNTP. That's the point
> that's being made.
And people not versed in web forums won't look through the sticky threads to
see what they want, either. Trust me, nothing will make someone read a FAQ
before asking a stupid question.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:13:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It makes a difference to people not versed in NNTP. That's the point
>> that's being made.
>
> And people not versed in web forums won't look through the sticky
> threads to see what they want, either. Trust me, nothing will make
> someone read a FAQ before asking a stupid question.
People not versed in web forums who visit web forums will see the sticky
messages first when they enter the forum. I only recently started using
them myself, but I learned very quickly that I want to look at the
stickies before asking any question.
There are some people who never will read the FAQ, just like there are
some people who will never use Google to try to search first. That
doesn't mean that things that call attention to the FAQ are useless.
People who use NNTP stand a far better chance of reading stickies than
people who don't use NNTP or e-mail lists are to look back through old
messages for answers to their questions. NNTP users tend to be more
technically saavy and also tend to (but not always) do their homework
before asking a question.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/15/09 15:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
> People not versed in web forums who visit web forums will see the sticky
> messages first when they enter the forum. I only recently started using
> them myself, but I learned very quickly that I want to look at the
> stickies before asking any question.
Unless there are too many. I'd say more than 3 and it loses its effect.
How did you learn to look at the stickies before asking a question?
--
Row, row, row your bits, gently down the stream...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
