Index » General » Better forum (page 2)

December 06, 2012
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 01:13:50 UTC, Rob T wrote:
> it frequently hangs when refreshing, hangs when posting, and it breaks up threads frequently (like this one), which is rather unpleasant if you're trying to follow a lengthy conversation.

Working on it.

> Someone really needs to take a look at what's going wrong and try to fix it

Why not you?

https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed
December 06, 2012
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 01:13:50 UTC, Rob T wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 21:55:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> I think that's a largely solved problem, as most who use http://forum.dlang.org love it over other systems, and for those who aren't into web forums there are good alternatives.
>
> I'm looking at the URL in my browser, and it's using http://forum.dlang.org.
>
> Sorry but I don't love it. I can't edit posts, it frequently hangs when refreshing, hangs when posting, and it breaks up threads frequently (like this one), which is rather unpleasant if you're trying to follow a lengthy conversation.
>
> My guess is that the people using a newsreader are OK, but a ton of people prefer to use web browsers, I would hazard a guess that most people who use the Internet don't even know what a newsreader is.
>
>> Of the features listed on http://www.mybb.com/features, it would be great to include voting. Other than that, clearly we should on fixing the issues with the system (as opposed to switching to another one).
>
> Someone really needs to take a look at what's going wrong and try to fix it, and if it cannot be fixed, than I would say an alternative should be seriously considered.
>
> --rt

I personally don't see why we can't have both. It really absolutely makes no sense. There are no laws of physics that is preventing them both from being used. Those that hate web based can stick to their own and those that hate nntp can stick to the web browsing. I do not use nntp simply because all the groups I used to frequent are dead. For me, while nntp doesn't allow editing, it wasn't a huge deal(at least most of the time).

What I do know is that editing will never be available with nntp and that is a severe restriction... in 2051 there will be no way to edit/delete posts here and fix mistakes. That tells you a lot about how dead the nntp protocol is. Sure there is a chance.... but about the same as a chance in hell... which, I think, is sorta like winning the lotto.

All the reasons I've seen so far in favor of nntp are pretty superficial. So you have to use a mouse to navigate? Or it takes 2 seconds longer to scan through a thread? So what? Write a script to reduce the clutter or make keyboard navigation easier... At least you have the ability to do those things with modern tools rather than being stuck using a rock as a hammer.

December 06, 2012
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 01:41:55 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
[...]
> I personally don't see why we can't have both. It really absolutely makes no sense. There are no laws of physics that is preventing them both from being used. Those that hate web based can stick to their own and those that hate nntp can stick to the web browsing. I do not use nntp simply because all the groups I used to frequent are dead. For me, while nntp doesn't allow editing, it wasn't a huge deal(at least most of the time).

We do have the web interface. If you want to start a separate
forum, that would mean splitting the community.

> What I do know is that editing will never be available with nntp and that is a severe restriction... in 2051 there will be no way to edit/delete posts here and fix mistakes. That tells you a lot about how dead the nntp protocol is. Sure there is a chance.... but about the same as a chance in hell... which, I think, is sorta like winning the lotto.

Editing is an anti-feature. I think it's nice that mistakes are
preserved. This is a forum for discussion, mistakes are expected,
and editing can make it difficult to follow.

> All the reasons I've seen so far in favor of nntp are pretty superficial. So you have to use a mouse to navigate? Or it takes 2 seconds longer to scan through a thread? So what? Write a script to reduce the clutter or make keyboard navigation easier... At least you have the ability to do those things with modern tools rather than being stuck using a rock as a hammer.

Proper threading is a pretty strong point for NNTP. The D forum
routinely messes it up, though. That reeaally should be tackled.

I have not seen a good argument for BBs. Editing is considered
harmful (by me). Other than that I only saw "they're shiny and new, all the other kids got them", not compelling.
December 06, 2012
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 03:08:16AM +0100, anonymous wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 01:41:55 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
[...]
> >What I do know is that editing will never be available with nntp and that is a severe restriction... in 2051 there will be no way to edit/delete posts here and fix mistakes. That tells you a lot about how dead the nntp protocol is. Sure there is a chance.... but about the same as a chance in hell... which, I think, is sorta like winning the lotto.
> 
> Editing is an anti-feature. I think it's nice that mistakes are preserved. This is a forum for discussion, mistakes are expected, and editing can make it difficult to follow.

+1. Editing encourages sloppy posting. Which is OK for casual discussions, but not for technical discussions like we have here. It also messes up history, because I can reply to something that's later changed or deleted, then whoever browses the archives won't be able to make head or tail of the discussion.


> >All the reasons I've seen so far in favor of nntp are pretty superficial. So you have to use a mouse to navigate? Or it takes 2 seconds longer to scan through a thread? So what? Write a script to reduce the clutter or make keyboard navigation easier... At least you have the ability to do those things with modern tools rather than being stuck using a rock as a hammer.

NNTP or not doesn't really matter ultimately. What does matter is (1) a
standard protocol that permits interoperability with multiple
front-ends, (2) proper tree-threading, which is not supported (or only
supported in a crippled limited way) in almost all BBs that I've seen
and used (I *do* use BB's, mind you, I'm not just railing against
something I don't know about), with the accompanying thread-level
manipulations (e.g., mark thread subtree as read, ignore subtree, etc.)
and navigations.


> Proper threading is a pretty strong point for NNTP. The D forum routinely messes it up, though. That reeaally should be tackled.

It's a bug with the mailing list to/from NNTP interface. But yeah, it really needs to be fixed. It's very annoying.


> I have not seen a good argument for BBs. Editing is considered harmful (by me). Other than that I only saw "they're shiny and new, all the other kids got them", not compelling.

Yeah, the only real argument for BBs I've seen so far is editing, which I consider harmful as well. The point about correcting a post in 2051 underscores this even more, ironically enough. Do you really want users to be able to come back years after the fact to subtly change a few words, in the name of "correcting the grammar" or some such? It invites revisionism which undermines the value of the archive -- you can never be sure, when reading old posts, what *actually* transpired, since everything could've been subject to change. It also makes the flow of conversation hard to follow, since some replies will be referencing the original version of a post, and other replies, the edited version.

And just for the record, I'm *not* using an NNTP client; I'm using the mailing list interface (which thankfully preserves threading, which is really the key thing for me). It's ultimately not about whether we use NNTP or not, but it's those 3 points I mentioned: a standard protocol, real, full, tree threading, and tree-based thread navigation / manipulation. In fact, if you can show me a BB that supports all three, I'd gladly support it.


T

-- 
It is of the new things that men tire --- of fashions and proposals and improvements and change. It is the old things that startle and intoxicate. It is the old things that are young. -- G.K. Chesterton
December 06, 2012
On 12/05/2012 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:
>
> Editing is an anti-feature. I think it's nice that mistakes are
> preserved. This is a forum for discussion, mistakes are expected,
> and editing can make it difficult to follow.

+1

I've been on plenty of forums where editing is allowed, and I hate it. If you're changing what you said, you're participating in a wiki page, not a conversation.
December 06, 2012
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 02:59:37 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:
>>
>> Editing is an anti-feature. I think it's nice that mistakes are
>> preserved. This is a forum for discussion, mistakes are expected,
>> and editing can make it difficult to follow.
>
> +1
>
> I've been on plenty of forums where editing is allowed, and I hate it. If you're changing what you said, you're participating in a wiki page, not a conversation.

Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes the intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post pointing out the mistake rather than being able to edit it?

You're just being ridiculous to be so... and hell, no one is forcing you to edit your mistakes to make it easier for others to understand. Not editing is much more harmful because it can cause a huge source of confusion on those that reply.  Now, that might be your intention, or may you are perfect and do not make mistakes, but it's not mine and I am not.
December 06, 2012
On 12/06/2012 04:10 AM, js.mdnq wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 02:59:37 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>> On 12/05/2012 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:
>>>
>>> Editing is an anti-feature. I think it's nice that mistakes are
>>> preserved. This is a forum for discussion, mistakes are expected,
>>> and editing can make it difficult to follow.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I've been on plenty of forums where editing is allowed, and I hate it.
>> If you're changing what you said, you're participating in a wiki page,
>> not a conversation.
>
> Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes the
> intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post pointing out
> the mistake rather than being able to edit it?
>
> You're just being ridiculous to be so... and hell, no one is forcing you
> to edit your mistakes to make it easier for others to understand. Not
> editing is much more harmful because it can cause a huge source of
> confusion on those that reply.  Now, that might be your intention, or
> may you are perfect and do not make mistakes, but it's not mine and I am
> not.

Don't feed the troll any longer.
December 06, 2012
On 12/05/2012 10:10 PM, js.mdnq wrote:
>
> Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes
> the intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post
> pointing out the mistake rather than being able to edit it?

Think twice, post once. Most mistakes are innocuous and don't need to be
corrected. If you need a correction, then yes, make a reply. The problem
is the basic principle of a conversation is lost if you make substantial
changes after other people have either read or replied to your post.

> You're just being ridiculous to be so...

No, it's the way I feel, and clearly I'm not the only one here. It also mirrors the nature of conversations.

> and hell, no one is forcing you to edit your mistakes to make it
> easier for others to understand.

It's not my editing that I'm worried about. I'm worried about the
integrity of the conversation, as some people just can't resist
treating their post like a wiki essay.
December 06, 2012
On Thursday, December 06, 2012 00:47:45 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 10:10 PM, js.mdnq wrote:
> > Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes the intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post pointing out the mistake rather than being able to edit it?
> 
> Think twice, post once. Most mistakes are innocuous and don't need to be corrected. If you need a correction, then yes, make a reply. The problem is the basic principle of a conversation is lost if you make substantial changes after other people have either read or replied to your post.
> 
> > You're just being ridiculous to be so...
> 
> No, it's the way I feel, and clearly I'm not the only one here. It also mirrors the nature of conversations.

Agreed.

> > and hell, no one is forcing you to edit your mistakes to make it easier for others to understand.
> 
> It's not my editing that I'm worried about. I'm worried about the integrity of the conversation, as some people just can't resist treating their post like a wiki essay.

Exactly. Upon occasion, I definitely wish that I could edit something that I posted (due to a spelling mistake or whatever), but if editing is allowed, it becomes to easy to change what's there, making it so that people then look like they said something completely different from what they said before and potentially destroying the thread of the conversation.

Yes, editing would be nice sometimes, but given the potential for abuse, I don't think that it's worth it. And it's definitely _not_ worth using a web forum to get it. I like using the mailing list interface, and I intend to continue to do so.

- Jonathan M Davis
December 06, 2012
On 12/6/2012 1:08 PM, anonymous wrote:
> I have not seen a good argument for BBs. Editing is considered
> harmful (by me). Other than that I only saw "they're shiny and new, all
> the other kids got them", not compelling.

The boosters of BB software have not addressed many of the complaints I had about them.

One mentioned that BB software allowed posting pictures. I kinda like that newsgroups don't do pictures - this is a programming forum. Pictures are needed in hotrod forums, but they're a waste of bandwidth here.

And I especially like the very, very low bandwidth requirements for NNTP. It keeps our server costs low, and for users it means you can access the forum on the go without worrying about your cell phone data bill, and it works over slow and unreliable connections (such as what you get at a conference).

And, of course, low bandwidth requirements means you get faster response times.
1 2 3 4
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home