The largest ISP in Finland decided to shut down their usenet server
because of lack of usage. It seems that it was the *only* server in
Finland which is open to the customers of that ISP (me being one of them)
as well as a huge bunch of customers of other smaller ISPs. There are
closed usenet servers here and there, but with very restricted access
(usually universities). So no luck there.

  So I'm suddenly cut off completely from usenet. Well, except for google
groups, but I would really like to use Thunderbird.

  Does anyone know of good, open usenet servers which I could use (ie.
accessible from Finland)? Ones which allow posting? I tried making a
google search but it seems a bit hopeless.

  I suppose google groups could be a last resort, although I'm not very
thrilled with the prospect.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Does anyone know of good, open usenet servers which I could use (ie.

There are a few that are for-fee, for $5/month or some such.  My ISP shut 
down newsgroups a while ago too, but I never signed up for anything myself.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>  Does anyone know of good, open usenet servers which I could use (ie.
> accessible from Finland)? Ones which allow posting? I tried making a
> google search but it seems a bit hopeless.

About 5-10 years ago I started looking for the same, because the ISP we were 
using had no news server.  There are a few that are free, but they come and 
go and are certainly not reliable, luckily I still have this link in my 
favourites, you might be able to find something here:

http://www.newsparrot.co.uk/

In the end I just gave up, the groups I frequented died out as people moved 
to web-based forums and most posts seemed to be spam.  As Darren said, if 
you really need it then the best bet would be to pay a small fee and have 
fast, reliable access.

Post a reply to this message

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?

  With usenet you don't need any accounts and passwords, and you can
subscribe to "forums" with any topic in existence, and use them all
with the same program without having to jump between any web pages.

  With web-based forums you have numerous completely different forums
with different addresses, you need an account and password for each one
of them.

  Every time you need to ask a question about a topic you have never
before dealt with (eg. about some new program you are trying), you can
simply search for the proper usenet group and ask there. No hassle, no
creating accounts, no confirming emails. Just go there and ask. It's
that simple. With web-based forums you always have to go through the
hassle of creating a new account for that one single question you had.

  Also there probably exist about one thousand *different* web-based
forums related to a specific topic (the more the topic is popular).
Which one are you going to choose? In usenet there's usually one or two
popular groups for a specific topic, and everyone in the world will
participate in them.

  For example, comp.lang.c++ is a rather active group where you can
actually get some real help if you have some problem about the language,
and where you can help others, ask questions, and so on. Which web-based
forum would be equivalent to that? I'm sure there are quite many of them,
most of them with something like 5 users. Which one would be the best
alternative to comp.lang.c++?

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:28:17 -0400, 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 the content they want is only available in web-based forums.

The lack of authentication typical of USENET means that many groups are 
just full of spam now.

I don't disagree with you that moving everything to WWW is a bad idea, 
but unfortunately, you and I don't get to make that decision for everyone.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

Plus, of course, you don't get users screaming at you that you dropped 
mega-post 19 of 47 of the latest blu-ray DVD rip.

>   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.

I agree.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/07/09 12:28, 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?

	SPAM SPAM SPAM.

	And archives.

	And moderation.

	The only benefit of newsgroups is the ability to use your client of 
choice.

	Also, when my university dropped USENET newsgroups, they had a really 
good explanation. The way newsgroups are structured, it takes a lot of 
maintenance on the university's side to keep the connection up and reliable.

>    With usenet you don't need any accounts and passwords, and you can
> subscribe to "forums" with any topic in existence, and use them all
> with the same program without having to jump between any web pages.

	True. Which also lets me pose as you.

>    With web-based forums you have numerous completely different forums
> with different addresses, you need an account and password for each one
> of them.

	True in reality, but need not be the case in principle. The web forum 
folks never came up with a common protocol.

	As with all the others, I do agree that web forums suck. But the wild 
west attitude of USENET newsgroups make them suck.

	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...

-- 
"Modem," said the gardener when he'd finished the lawn...

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

>  With usenet you don't need any accounts and passwords,

Which means lots of spam.

>  With web-based forums you have numerous completely different forums
> with different addresses, you need an account and password for each one
> of them.

You don't have a favourites folder to put the addresses in?  You can always 
use the same password for each forum, or tell your browser to remember the 
password.

>  Every time you need to ask a question about a topic you have never
> before dealt with (eg. about some new program you are trying), you can
> simply search for the proper usenet group and ask there.

And then be told to read the group's FAQ (how are you meant to know where 
that is beforehand?) or to search for the answer.  With a forum there will 
usually be a FAQ thread at the top of each sub-forum, and maybe even a 
"Newbies read this first" thread if you're lucky.

>  For example, comp.lang.c++ is a rather active group where you can
> actually get some real help if you have some problem about the language,
> and where you can help others, ask questions, and so on.

I tried to find a group for DirectX on usenet, and even on MS Communities 
(the MS usenet server) but none were particularly active compared to the web 
forums I found.

> Which web-based
> forum would be equivalent to that? I'm sure there are quite many of them,
> most of them with something like 5 users. Which one would be the best
> alternative to comp.lang.c++?

Googling "C++ forum" gives me codeguru.com which seems to be pretty active 
(861 users online when I checked).

>  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.

The only thing usenet is good for is being able to use it at work because it 
looks like you're just writing lots of emails to people and not that you're 
wasting time browsing the web :-)

Take pov.general for instance, there is a *huge* amount of very useful 
information in there, wouldn't it be great if it was organised into 
sub-categories like texturing, lighting, CSG etc, each with some FAQs for 
each sub category, with images included *at the right place* in the posts, 
and subject lines like "cubic meshes", "constructing a geometry", "mesh2" 
and "fractals.inc" renamed to something meaningful to help when 
browsing/searching?

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - 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