Is ba.internet dying a slow death?

[Mark]

I've sensed for some time that the quantity of
messages posted to ba.internet has declined.
I think that I've confirmed my hunch by using
Googles Groups' advanced groups search page at:

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

I entered ba.internet in the newsgroup
box and each of the following one-year
periods in the message dates box. Here
are the results:

8 July 1990 - 7 July 1991: 9 threads
8 July 1991 - 7 July 1992: 152 threads
8 July 1992 - 7 July 1993: 450 threads
8 July 1993 - 7 July 1994: 904 threads
8 July 1994 - 7 July 1995: 5310 threads
8 July 1995 - 7 July 1996: 7010 threads
8 July 1996 - 7 July 1997: 8010 threads
8 July 1997 - 7 July 1998: 6900 threads
8 July 1998 - 7 July 1999: 10100 threads
8 July 1999 - 7 July 2000: 56800* threads
8 July 2000 - 7 July 2001: 56800* threads
8 July 2001 - 7 July 2002: 56800* threads
8 July 2002 - 7 July 2003: 14100 threads
8 July 2003 - 7 July 2004: 10300 threads

(* The results for the three years between
mid-1999 and mid-2002 are probably low; I
gather that the search function will locate
a maximum of only 56,800 threads.)

It appears that the quantity of threads in
the last year is down at least 80% from the
annual quantity as of a few years ago.

- Is my observation valid?

- Does any of you have a guess as to why the
message count is down so dramatically?

- Where are of all those absent questioners
going these days for free and excellent answers
to their Internet questions?

- Did something happen among ba.internet
habitués that spoiled the atmosphere? Or are
we witnessing the inevitable end of an era?

- What might we do to raise ba.internet's profile?
How about a barbecue or a concert or a bake sale
or a group shoplifting excursion to Stoneridge
Shopping Center?


**********
1366294709

[d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com]

Post by Mark
- Does any of you have a guess as to why the
message count is down so dramatically?

I haven't seen three or four simultaneous flame wars between John, John,
and Phil in quite a while.

Post by Mark
- Did something happen among ba.internet
habitues that spoiled the atmosphere? Or are
we witnessing the inevitable end of an era?

I did see a posting from the missing John recently, so it's just the
flaming that's gone.

Post by Mark
- What might we do to raise ba.internet's profile?
How about a barbecue or a concert or a bake sale
or a group shoplifting excursion to Stoneridge
Shopping Center?

A barbeque for 56,000? Youch.

[John Higdon]

Post by d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com

Post by Mark
- Does any of you have a guess as to why the
message count is down so dramatically?

I haven't seen three or four simultaneous flame wars between John, John,
and Phil in quite a while.

Never underestimate the magic of killfiles.

[k***@sonic.net]

Post by d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com

Post by Mark
- Does any of you have a guess as to why the
message count is down so dramatically?

I haven't seen three or four simultaneous flame wars between John, John,
and Phil in quite a while.

Post by Mark
- Did something happen among ba.internet
habitues that spoiled the atmosphere? Or are
we witnessing the inevitable end of an era?

I did see a posting from the missing John recently, so it's just the
flaming that's gone.

Post by Mark
- What might we do to raise ba.internet's profile?
How about a barbecue or a concert or a bake sale
or a group shoplifting excursion to Stoneridge
Shopping Center?

I've noticed in general that, when an organization starts
worrying about declining membership or participation, it's usually too
late to reverse the trend.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Mark
I've sensed for some time that the quantity of
messages posted to ba.internet has declined.
I think that I've confirmed my hunch by using
...
It appears that the quantity of threads in
the last year is down at least 80% from the
annual quantity as of a few years ago.
- Is my observation valid?

I think so.

Post by Mark
- Does any of you have a guess as to why the
message count is down so dramatically?

Usenet is in general decline, and that's reflected in ba.internet.

Post by Mark
- Where are of all those absent questioners
going these days for free and excellent answers
to their Internet questions?

Primarily web forums, which don't suffer from all the noise and nastiness on
Usenet (exemplified even in this thread).

Post by Mark
- Did something happen among ba.internet
habitués that spoiled the atmosphere? Or are
we witnessing the inevitable end of an era?

I think we're witnessing the Decline and Fall of Usenet.

Post by Mark
- What might we do to raise ba.internet's profile?
How about a barbecue or a concert or a bake sale
or a group shoplifting excursion to Stoneridge
Shopping Center?

Usenet 2 was arguably the last best hope, but went nowhere.

[Javier Henderson]

Post by John Navas
Usenet 2 was arguably the last best hope, but went nowhere.

I was an early adopter. I think there was more traffic about Usenet 2
than anything else.

-jav

[Dane Jasper]

John Navas <***@navasgroup.com> wrote:
: I think we're witnessing the Decline and Fall of Usenet.

Or at least the changing. We're seeing more and more traffic, but it's all
binaries.

The death of the Usenet has been often predicted - we'll see!

On a related note, does anyone have any decent web forum <--> NNTP gateway
software? I'd love to boost readership and accessibility of the sonic.*
newsgroups via a web interface that looked like UBB or something.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Dane Jasper
: I think we're witnessing the Decline and Fall of Usenet.
Or at least the changing. We're seeing more and more traffic, but it's all
binaries.

Most of them illicit.

Post by Dane Jasper
The death of the Usenet has been often predicted - we'll see!

Indeed, but I think the downward trend has been clear for the past few years.

Post by Dane Jasper
On a related note, does anyone have any decent web forum <--> NNTP gateway
software? I'd love to boost readership and accessibility of the sonic.*
newsgroups via a web interface that looked like UBB or something.

Another nail in the coffin. [sigh]

[Dane Jasper]

John Navas <***@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Dane wrote:
:>On a related note, does anyone have any decent web forum <--> NNTP gateway
:>software? I'd love to boost readership and accessibility of the sonic.*
:>newsgroups via a web interface that looked like UBB or something.

: Another nail in the coffin. [sigh]

You think so? If the forums for dialog that are the Usenet become more
available via more web interfaces ala Google groups, would that boost usage,
or be a bad thing?

An interesting side note - if you have a Gmail account, and nothing in your
inbox, there's a little comment there "Nothing to read? Try Google Groups
(linked)!".

[Joe Chung]

Post by Dane Jasper
:>On a related note, does anyone have any decent web forum <--> NNTP gateway
:>software? I'd love to boost readership and accessibility of the sonic.*
:>newsgroups via a web interface that looked like UBB or something.
: Another nail in the coffin. [sigh]
You think so? If the forums for dialog that are the Usenet become more
available via more web interfaces ala Google groups, would that boost usage,
or be a bad thing?
An interesting side note - if you have a Gmail account, and nothing in your
inbox, there's a little comment there "Nothing to read? Try Google Groups
(linked)!".

I think forums that tie to Usenet groups tend to boost Usenet
traffic.

For example, the recent explosion in the popularity of poker has
made rec.gambling.poker unreadable (thousands of messages per
day), unless you have a lot of time on your hands. But most of
the posts on RGP come through: http://www.recpoker.com/

Btw, google is experimenting with a new format for google-groups
which more closely resembles their gmail threading layout.

http://groups-beta.google.com/

-jc

[Philip J. Koenig]

In article <***@ID-239987.user.uni-berlin.de>, ***@nospam.invalid
(Joe Chung) writes...

Post by Joe Chung
Btw, google is experimenting with a new format for google-groups
which more closely resembles their gmail threading layout.
http://groups-beta.google.com/
-jc

Looks like some interesting changes, although I don't see any of
the "advanced search" interface which I use frequently.

It's still good to see that Google continues to put some effort
into their Usenet archive/gateway.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Dane Jasper
:>On a related note, does anyone have any decent web forum <--> NNTP gateway
:>software? I'd love to boost readership and accessibility of the sonic.*
:>newsgroups via a web interface that looked like UBB or something.
: Another nail in the coffin. [sigh]
You think so? If the forums for dialog that are the Usenet become more
available via more web interfaces ala Google groups, would that boost usage,
or be a bad thing?

In my experience, web gateways encourage people to migrate away from Usenet
and to the Web, which tends to hurt Usenet in the long run.

[Vicar Peter Parsnip]

Be still! and revere John Navas, who blessed us with their presence on 08
Jul 2004...

Post by John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Mark
- Did something happen among ba.internet
habitués that spoiled the atmosphere? Or are
we witnessing the inevitable end of an era?

I think we're witnessing the Decline and Fall of Usenet.

Death of Usenet Predicted! Film at 11!

Post by John Navas

Post by Mark
- What might we do to raise ba.internet's profile?
How about a barbecue or a concert or a bake sale
or a group shoplifting excursion to Stoneridge
Shopping Center?

Usenet 2 was arguably the last best hope, but went nowhere.

Usenet 2?

Don't make me laugh.

[Philip J. Koenig]

In article <***@the-way-of-the-parsnip.root-vegetables>, ***@fish
(Vicar Peter Parsnip) writes...

[nothing particularly interesting]



Please desist from cross-posting your contentless followups
to a bunch of unrelated, contentless newsgroups.

The last thing we need in here is another "thread from hell"
continuously perpetuated by a bunch of people with too much
time on their hands and who've never even heard of "ba.internet".


[unrelated newsgroups removed]

[Vicar Peter Parsnip]

Be still! and revere Philip J. Koenig, who blessed us with their presence
on 13 Jul 2004...

Post by Philip J. Koenig
In article
(Vicar Peter Parsnip) writes...
[nothing particularly interesting]
Please desist from cross-posting your contentless followups
to a bunch of unrelated, contentless newsgroups.
The last thing we need in here is another "thread from hell"
continuously perpetuated by a bunch of people with too much
time on their hands and who've never even heard of "ba.internet".
[unrelated newsgroups removed]

Your newsfroup snecking has been noted.

ba.internet may be added to future lits. But I wouldn't want to give you a
new "thread from hell". Never.

[Philip J. Koenig]

In article <***@posting.google.com>, xx-***@telefog.com
(Mark) writes...

Post by Mark
I've sensed for some time that the quantity of
messages posted to ba.internet has declined.
I think that I've confirmed my hunch by using
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
I entered ba.internet in the newsgroup
box and each of the following one-year
periods in the message dates box. Here
8 July 1990 - 7 July 1991: 9 threads
8 July 1991 - 7 July 1992: 152 threads
8 July 1992 - 7 July 1993: 450 threads
8 July 1993 - 7 July 1994: 904 threads
8 July 1994 - 7 July 1995: 5310 threads
8 July 1995 - 7 July 1996: 7010 threads
8 July 1996 - 7 July 1997: 8010 threads
8 July 1997 - 7 July 1998: 6900 threads
8 July 1998 - 7 July 1999: 10100 threads
8 July 1999 - 7 July 2000: 56800* threads
8 July 2000 - 7 July 2001: 56800* threads
8 July 2001 - 7 July 2002: 56800* threads
8 July 2002 - 7 July 2003: 14100 threads
8 July 2003 - 7 July 2004: 10300 threads
(* The results for the three years between
mid-1999 and mid-2002 are probably low; I
gather that the search function will locate
a maximum of only 56,800 threads.)
It appears that the quantity of threads in
the last year is down at least 80% from the
annual quantity as of a few years ago.
- Is my observation valid?

Actually I'd be more inclined to suggest that the years 1999
through 2001 were highly anomalous, if you look at the general
trend.

Therefore, if you throw out those flamewar years (most of the
traffic coming from huge crossposted threads about spam/antispam),
the traffic in recent years is nowhere near "80% down".

Post by Mark
- Does any of you have a guess as to why the
message count is down so dramatically?
- Where are of all those absent questioners
going these days for free and excellent answers
to their Internet questions?

As others have mentioned, to web forums, or perhaps mail lists.*

It's a pity though, because I think 99.9% of the web forums
are an inferior form of online discussion compared to what can
be done with Usenet and a good Usenet client application.
(content providers love web forums, of course, because they
provide a convenient way to shove advertising down everyone's
throat. Users "love" web forums because most of them aren't
aware of alternatives, or grew up with the WWW and just like
all those people who think email is the best way to send 300MB
files, don't know any better.)


* (I myself started spending more time on mail lists in recent
years due to the fact that after Usenet became spammier and
spammier, many of the people with more interesting things to
contribute ran off to mail lists because they are typically
easier to control than most unmoderated Usenet groups and the
signal-to-noise level is frequently better than Usenet)

Post by Mark
- Did something happen among ba.internet
habitués that spoiled the atmosphere?

I am sure that some people lost interest due to the habits or
actions of certain regulars in ba.internet. Such things are
hard to quantify however.

[d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com]

Post by Philip J. Koenig
It's a pity though, because I think 99.9% of the web forums
are an inferior form of online discussion compared to what can
be done with Usenet and a good Usenet client application.

I follow lots of topics with one usenet news reader.
I have visited a few forums, but I don't want to visit as many different
ones as exist for topics covered by a single Usenet news group, much less
all of the groups that I follow. Different interfaces, different logins,
separately launched tasks.

There was a thread in the gps group about how many different forums there
are for GPS, as opposed to one usenet "place".

Post by Philip J. Koenig
* (I myself started spending more time on mail lists in recent
years due to the fact that after Usenet became spammier and

I participated in a brand-specific motorcycle list because there was so
much stupidity and anti-brand nonsense in the usenet motorcycle groups.

Post by Philip J. Koenig
I am sure that some people lost interest due to the habits or
actions of certain regulars in ba.internet. Such things are
hard to quantify however.

I have no killfiles. I do stop reading any thread after about the 20th
post, though. This is #12 for this one, I think.

[JC Dill]

Post by d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com
There was a thread in the gps group about how many different forums there
are for GPS, as opposed to one usenet "place".

Speaking of GPS:

I'm looking for the ba.internet equivalent group/list where I can ask
for GPS recommendations.

In particular, I'm buying an 18th birthday/graduation gift for a young
man who has just moved to California from Boston and whose father just
bought him his first car. His prior driving experience before moving to
CA was minimal (and all in Boston), so think "just licensed 16 year old"
WRT driving experience. He A) needs help not getting lost when driving
about here in the Bay Area, and B) I think he might enjoy geocaching. I
have a budget, I'd like to buy him something useful for under $300 if
possible. I know that I'm not going to get anything that will give him
real time direction (such as a simulated voice telling him "left turn in
100 yards"), but I think it would be good if he could load local maps in
it so that if he does make a wrong turn he can stop and quickly find out
where he IS and see the route to his destination. Suggestions for
groups/lists/ and/or GPS units all greatly appreciated.

jc

[Jerry]

Post by JC Dill

Post by d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com
There was a thread in the gps group about how many different
forums there are for GPS, as opposed to one usenet "place".

I'm looking for the ba.internet equivalent group/list where I can
ask for GPS recommendations.
In particular, I'm buying an 18th birthday/graduation gift for a
young man who has just moved to California from Boston and whose
father just bought him his first car. His prior driving
experience before moving to CA was minimal (and all in Boston), so
think "just licensed 16 year old" WRT driving experience. He A)
needs help not getting lost when driving about here in the Bay
Area, and B) I think he might enjoy geocaching. I have a budget,
I'd like to buy him something useful for under $300 if possible.
I know that I'm not going to get anything that will give him real
time direction (such as a simulated voice telling him "left turn
in 100 yards"), but I think it would be good if he could load
local maps in it so that if he does make a wrong turn he can stop
and quickly find out where he IS and see the route to his
destination. Suggestions for groups/lists/ and/or GPS units all
greatly appreciated.
jc

You'd never know it from its name, but sci.geo.satellite-nav is a very
active newsgroup for personal GPS receivers.

[d***@speakingXo.usenet.us.com]

Post by Jerry
You'd never know it from its name, but sci.geo.satellite-nav is a very
active newsgroup for personal GPS receivers.

The only way I found it was a google search at large, which turned up some
postings that had been copied to forums.

[Brad Allen]

" You'd never know it from its name, but sci.geo.satellite-nav is a
" very active newsgroup for personal GPS receivers.

What the heck are you talking about? That is an extremely obvious
name for GPS topics:

Scientific: Geo (global/geographical/geological): Satellite: Navigation

Global Positioning System

However, I wish they had chosen "sci.geo.sat.nav" instead; it's much
more appropriate for USENET hierarchy.

[xray]

Post by Brad Allen
What the heck are you talking about? That is an extremely obvious

Obvious? Well I found it a long time ago from a reference in some
mapping site, but I wouldn't call it obvious. If I was thinking GPS and
just looking for news group names (there are quite a few) I don't think
I would have found it.

Now that I know it exists and the kind of things they discuss, its
obvious where to go because I have a clue. The group name makes sense
once you see it, but it it isn't one I would have gone looking for
directly.

[d***@speakingXo.usenet.us.com]

Post by JC Dill

Post by d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com
There was a thread in the gps group about how many different forums there
are for GPS, as opposed to one usenet "place".

I'm looking for the ba.internet equivalent group/list where I can ask
for GPS recommendations.

I'll just change the followup and crosspost this to
sci.geo.satellite-nav

Post by JC Dill
In particular, I'm buying an 18th birthday/graduation gift for a young
man who has just moved to California from Boston and whose father just
bought him his first car. His prior driving experience before moving to
CA was minimal (and all in Boston), so think "just licensed 16 year old"
WRT driving experience. He A) needs help not getting lost when driving
about here in the Bay Area, and B) I think he might enjoy geocaching. I
have a budget, I'd like to buy him something useful for under $300 if
possible. I know that I'm not going to get anything that will give him
real time direction (such as a simulated voice telling him "left turn in
100 yards"), but I think it would be good if he could load local maps in
it so that if he does make a wrong turn he can stop and quickly find out
where he IS and see the route to his destination. Suggestions for
groups/lists/ and/or GPS units all greatly appreciated.
jc

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by JC Dill

Post by d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com
There was a thread in the gps group about how many different forums there
are for GPS, as opposed to one usenet "place".

I'm looking for the ba.internet equivalent group/list where I can ask
for GPS recommendations.
In particular, I'm buying an 18th birthday/graduation gift for a young
man who has just moved to California from Boston and whose father just
bought him his first car. His prior driving experience before moving to
CA was minimal (and all in Boston), so think "just licensed 16 year old"
WRT driving experience. He A) needs help not getting lost when driving
about here in the Bay Area, and B) I think he might enjoy geocaching. I
have a budget, I'd like to buy him something useful for under $300 if
possible. I know that I'm not going to get anything that will give him
real time direction (such as a simulated voice telling him "left turn in
100 yards"), but I think it would be good if he could load local maps in
it so that if he does make a wrong turn he can stop and quickly find out
where he IS and see the route to his destination. Suggestions for
groups/lists/ and/or GPS units all greatly appreciated.

Costco has been selling a very good mapping GPS, complete with USA atlas CD,
that's priced within your budget.

[k***@sonic.net]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:54:40 GMT, John Navas

Post by John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by JC Dill

Post by d***@IsXbaXinte.usenet.us.com
There was a thread in the gps group about how many different forums there
are for GPS, as opposed to one usenet "place".

I'm looking for the ba.internet equivalent group/list where I can ask
for GPS recommendations.
In particular, I'm buying an 18th birthday/graduation gift for a young
man who has just moved to California from Boston and whose father just
bought him his first car. His prior driving experience before moving to
CA was minimal (and all in Boston), so think "just licensed 16 year old"
WRT driving experience. He A) needs help not getting lost when driving
about here in the Bay Area, and B) I think he might enjoy geocaching. I
have a budget, I'd like to buy him something useful for under $300 if
possible. I know that I'm not going to get anything that will give him
real time direction (such as a simulated voice telling him "left turn in
100 yards"), but I think it would be good if he could load local maps in
it so that if he does make a wrong turn he can stop and quickly find out
where he IS and see the route to his destination. Suggestions for
groups/lists/ and/or GPS units all greatly appreciated.

Costco has been selling a very good mapping GPS, complete with USA atlas CD,
that's priced within your budget.

It also had 2 $50 rebates -- one each from Costco and from
Magellan (Thales).

[Don Briggs]

It's my impression that the discussion group is getting fewer postings but
nonsystematic observation is suspect. A lifetime of swatting flies does not
make one an entomologist. If addition, homenetworking has become much
simpler over the years vastly reducing the number of "How do I run two
computers with one cable/DSL modem."

Post by Mark
I've sensed for some time that the quantity of
messages posted to ba.internet has declined.
I think that I've confirmed my hunch by using
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
I entered ba.internet in the newsgroup
box and each of the following one-year
periods in the message dates box. Here
8 July 1990 - 7 July 1991: 9 threads
8 July 1991 - 7 July 1992: 152 threads
8 July 1992 - 7 July 1993: 450 threads
8 July 1993 - 7 July 1994: 904 threads
8 July 1994 - 7 July 1995: 5310 threads
8 July 1995 - 7 July 1996: 7010 threads
8 July 1996 - 7 July 1997: 8010 threads
8 July 1997 - 7 July 1998: 6900 threads
8 July 1998 - 7 July 1999: 10100 threads
8 July 1999 - 7 July 2000: 56800* threads
8 July 2000 - 7 July 2001: 56800* threads
8 July 2001 - 7 July 2002: 56800* threads
8 July 2002 - 7 July 2003: 14100 threads
8 July 2003 - 7 July 2004: 10300 threads
(* The results for the three years between
mid-1999 and mid-2002 are probably low; I
gather that the search function will locate
a maximum of only 56,800 threads.)
It appears that the quantity of threads in
the last year is down at least 80% from the
annual quantity as of a few years ago.
- Is my observation valid?
- Does any of you have a guess as to why the
message count is down so dramatically?
- Where are of all those absent questioners
going these days for free and excellent answers
to their Internet questions?
- Did something happen among ba.internet
habitués that spoiled the atmosphere? Or are
we witnessing the inevitable end of an era?
- What might we do to raise ba.internet's profile?
How about a barbecue or a concert or a bake sale
or a group shoplifting excursion to Stoneridge
Shopping Center?
**********
1366294709

[Philip J. Koenig]

In article <rMudnU01bqEK83DdRVn-***@comcast.com>, ***@comcast.net (Don Briggs)
writes...

Post by Don Briggs
It's my impression that the discussion group is getting fewer postings but
nonsystematic observation is suspect. A lifetime of swatting flies does not
make one an entomologist. If addition, homenetworking has become much
simpler over the years vastly reducing the number of "How do I run two
computers with one cable/DSL modem."

I agree. Back in the days when ba.internet was young, internet
access for "the masses" was a very new thing. It was before the
commercialization of much of the backbone, very few sites existed
that provided access to anyone but academia, corporations or the
government, and these people really were in the process of
conceptualizing and implementing things that had never been done
before.

Now, as you said, networking is trivial for the average consumer
and is built-in to a plethora of common mass-market devices, and
the commercialization of the 'net has shifted the players and
those with a vested interest in different ways. Most of the
movers and shakers I would surmise are today probably spending
most of their time on mail lists like NANOG, various IETF
forums and the like, not on ba.internet.

Combined with the exodus of the average mass-market users to
web-based forums, I think that pretty much encompasses most
of the trend we are seeing.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Philip J. Koenig
writes...

Post by Don Briggs
It's my impression that the discussion group is getting fewer postings but
nonsystematic observation is suspect. A lifetime of swatting flies does not
make one an entomologist. If addition, homenetworking has become much
simpler over the years vastly reducing the number of "How do I run two
computers with one cable/DSL modem."

I agree. Back in the days when ba.internet was young, internet
access for "the masses" was a very new thing. It was before the
commercialization of much of the backbone, very few sites existed
that provided access to anyone but academia, corporations or the
government, and these people really were in the process of
conceptualizing and implementing things that had never been done
before.
Now, as you said, networking is trivial for the average consumer
...

With all due respect, I think that's an unwarranted leap -- recent studies
show that wireless networking (the most common type of network now being
deployed by consumers) is still way too difficult and problematic.

[Philip J. Koenig]

In article <EIAHc.1405$***@typhoon.sonic.net>, ***@navasgroup.com (John
Navas) writes...

Post by John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Philip J. Koenig
writes...

Post by Don Briggs
It's my impression that the discussion group is getting fewer postings but
nonsystematic observation is suspect. A lifetime of swatting flies does not
make one an entomologist. If addition, homenetworking has become much
simpler over the years vastly reducing the number of "How do I run two
computers with one cable/DSL modem."

I agree. Back in the days when ba.internet was young, internet
access for "the masses" was a very new thing. It was before the
commercialization of much of the backbone, very few sites existed
that provided access to anyone but academia, corporations or the
government, and these people really were in the process of
conceptualizing and implementing things that had never been done
before.
Now, as you said, networking is trivial for the average consumer
...

With all due respect, I think that's an unwarranted leap -- recent studies
show that wireless networking (the most common type of network now being
deployed by consumers) is still way too difficult and problematic.

Of course you remember the days when even getting a TCP/IP stack
working on a personal computer was a major undertaking, and
required major expertise. (for that matter, you also remember
the days when personal computers and public internet access
were virtually nonexistent :-)

Nowadays any consumer with almost zero technical knowledge who
buys a home computer can be online and working on the internet
in a matter of minutes.

I'd say that's major progress.

Wireless networking is just more new stuff, and most people don't
"need" it the same way they now "need" things like web access and
email on their home computer.

[Phil Nelson]

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Nowadays any consumer with almost zero technical knowledge who
buys a home computer can be online and working on the internet
in a matter of minutes.
I'd say that's major progress.

It is if you measure the success of a newsgroup by quantity of posts.

If you measure success by SNR, not necessarily.

[k***@sonic.net]

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:10:40 GMT, Phil Nelson

Post by Phil Nelson

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Nowadays any consumer with almost zero technical knowledge who
buys a home computer can be online and working on the internet
in a matter of minutes.
I'd say that's major progress.

It is if you measure the success of a newsgroup by quantity of posts.
If you measure success by SNR, not necessarily.

Wouldja post that again -- I can't hear you. :-)

[John Higdon]

Post by k***@sonic.net
Wouldja post that again -- I can't hear you. :-)

You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

[Eric C. Weaver]

Post by John Higdon

Post by k***@sonic.net
Wouldja post that again -- I can't hear you. :-)

You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

Seconded. Since I set up Mozilla filters (hooray for the addition of filters
for newsgroups!) to block the two main flamers, it's been a much easier read.

Now if only it would filter based on message body so I could kill followups to
their drivel...

[John Higdon]

Post by Eric C. Weaver
Now if only it would filter based on message body so I could kill followups to
their drivel...

Easy...just kill subject. I realize it isn't the same thing, but when
The Twins start in on a given topic, the topic is usually dead anyway.

[Brad Allen]

" Easy...just kill subject. I realize it isn't the same thing, but
" when The Twins start in on a given topic, the topic is usually dead
" anyway.

I've started doing that with a lot of success, however, sometimes
their leeching branches start while the main tree is still alive.
Some might notice I even sometimes get so mad at seeing their stuff
that I respond to them ... sigh. But mostly I skip their stuff by
either killing subject or carefully pruning (which in trn seems to be
only possible with ]n]n]n]n]n or something like that, but I haven't
read trn documentation yet).

I don't want to kill the authors yet, since unfortunately I haven't
determined which ones are useless.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <absolutely.no.spam-***@equine.announcetech.com> on Sun,
11 Jul 2004 07:48:33 -0700, John Higdon

Post by John Higdon

Post by k***@sonic.net
Wouldja post that again -- I can't hear you. :-)

You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

How childish.

[Javier Henderson]

Post by John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
11 Jul 2004 07:48:33 -0700, John Higdon

Post by John Higdon

Post by k***@sonic.net
Wouldja post that again -- I can't hear you. :-)

You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

How childish.

Why are you taking offense?

-jav

[k***@sonic.net]

Post by Javier Henderson

Post by John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
11 Jul 2004 07:48:33 -0700, John Higdon

Post by John Higdon

Post by k***@sonic.net
Wouldja post that again -- I can't hear you. :-)

You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

How childish.

Why are you taking offense?

Normal progression -- pot, kettle, shoe, fit.

Or maybe that should be hissy fit.

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Javier Henderson

Post by John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
11 Jul 2004 07:48:33 -0700, John Higdon

Post by John Higdon

Post by k***@sonic.net
Wouldja post that again -- I can't hear you. :-)

You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

How childish.

Why are you taking offense?

I take no offense. I suggest you read more carefully.

[a***@MIX.COM]

Post by Javier Henderson

Post by John Navas

Post by John Higdon
You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

How childish.

Why are you taking offense?

Cause he's the most killed guy in the group?

John, if you ever wrote anything worth reading I might un-kill you.
But we both know that is not going to happen.

Billy Y..

[a***@MIX.COM]

Post by John Higdon
You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

No shit - I only kill two users here, but that makes a BIG difference
to say the very least.

Billy Y..

[Javier Henderson]

Post by a***@MIX.COM

Post by John Higdon
You should look into kill files. Thanks to them, I read this group with
a great deal more pleasure. Since 2/1/04, I have been spared seeing 778
posts from one individual alone!

No shit - I only kill two users here, but that makes a BIG difference
to say the very least.

How childish.

Oh wait...

-jav

[Philip J. Koenig]

Post by Phil Nelson

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Nowadays any consumer with almost zero technical knowledge who
buys a home computer can be online and working on the internet
in a matter of minutes.
I'd say that's major progress.

It is if you measure the success of a newsgroup by quantity of posts.
If you measure success by SNR, not necessarily.

I'm sorry to say that as of today, if you measure the success of
the entire internet by "SNR", then it would surely be classed an
complete failure.

[Phil Nelson]

Post by Philip J. Koenig

Post by Phil Nelson

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Nowadays any consumer with almost zero technical knowledge who
buys a home computer can be online and working on the internet
in a matter of minutes.
I'd say that's major progress.

It is if you measure the success of a newsgroup by quantity of posts.
If you measure success by SNR, not necessarily.

I'm sorry to say that as of today, if you measure the success of
the entire internet by "SNR", then it would surely be classed an
complete failure.

So your statement isn't really informative. We need to know (at least)
what you mean by "progress".

[Philip J. Koenig]

Post by Phil Nelson

Post by Philip J. Koenig

Post by Phil Nelson

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Nowadays any consumer with almost zero technical knowledge who
buys a home computer can be online and working on the internet
in a matter of minutes.
I'd say that's major progress.

It is if you measure the success of a newsgroup by quantity of posts.
If you measure success by SNR, not necessarily.

I'm sorry to say that as of today, if you measure the success of
the entire internet by "SNR", then it would surely be classed an
complete failure.

So your statement isn't really informative. We need to know (at least)
what you mean by "progress".

What I was saying is that what was once a major undertaking
(setting up internet access on a home computer) is now trivial.
That's "progress" to me.

I was not addressing in that posting whether or not any particular
usenet newsgroup had higher "SNR" (something you just threw in
there) or was "successful" or not based on number of posts.

I did point out in a previous post that the OP's assumption that
the group was "dying" because of lower posting traffic was based
largely on a bad statistical assumption: namely a large "bubble"
of posting activity over the previous 2-3 year period which was
clearly a statistical anomaly in-and-of itself. (based on the OP's
provided numbers)

[John Navas]

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Navas) writes...

Post by John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Post by Philip J. Koenig
writes...

Post by Don Briggs
It's my impression that the discussion group is getting fewer postings but
nonsystematic observation is suspect. A lifetime of swatting flies does not
make one an entomologist. If addition, homenetworking has become much
simpler over the years vastly reducing the number of "How do I run two
computers with one cable/DSL modem."

I agree. Back in the days when ba.internet was young, internet
access for "the masses" was a very new thing. It was before the
commercialization of much of the backbone, very few sites existed
that provided access to anyone but academia, corporations or the
government, and these people really were in the process of
conceptualizing and implementing things that had never been done
before.
Now, as you said, networking is trivial for the average consumer
...

With all due respect, I think that's an unwarranted leap -- recent studies
show that wireless networking (the most common type of network now being
deployed by consumers) is still way too difficult and problematic.

Of course you remember the days when even getting a TCP/IP stack
working on a personal computer was a major undertaking, and
required major expertise. (for that matter, you also remember
the days when personal computers and public internet access
were virtually nonexistent :-)
Nowadays any consumer with almost zero technical knowledge who
buys a home computer can be online and working on the internet
in a matter of minutes.

I'd say that's a great exaggeration.

Post by Philip J. Koenig
I'd say that's major progress.

I'd say it's no better than significant.

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Wireless networking is just more new stuff, and most people don't
"need" it the same way they now "need" things like web access and
email on their home computer.

You said (wrote) "networking" -- not "connect to the Internet."

[Brad Allen]

" ["movers and shakers"] most of their time on mail lists like NANOG,
" various IETF forums and the like, not on ba.internet.

Same as before, probably, although they probably used IETF more before
than now.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Mark
I've sensed for some time that the quantity of
messages posted to ba.internet has declined.
- Is my observation valid?

Yep. However, quantity of postings is not a measure of the "success"
of a newsgroup or mailing list. I'm on several mailing lists that
have very few postings, but which return very high quality answers
because of the caliber of the users. Most of these users are refugees
from newsgroups which have been innundated by clueless and
inexperienced users.

Post by Mark
- Does any of you have a guess as to why the
message count is down so dramatically?

Yes. Migration of competent users to more application or interest
specific mailing lists and "forums". DSLReports is a good example of
where much of the telco, hardware, and beginner questions have moved.
It's the general purpose newsgroups that have taken the largest
membership hits. There are now individual mailing lists for every
major internet protocol and service, as well as for each major
application. It's difficult to find a general purpose topic that's
suitable for ba.internet (and on topic), that would not be more
suitable and yield better answers from a more specific mailing list or
weblog. Even ISP politics has been largely moved to the CISPA mailing
list. Well, that is unless you consider hi-fi, broadcast, wireless,
and spam filtering philosophy to be appropriate.

Post by Mark
- Where are of all those absent questioners
going these days for free and excellent answers
to their Internet questions?

Mailing lists with controlled membership, easier to use web based
forums, WebLogs, and such.

Post by Mark
- Did something happen among ba.internet
habitués that spoiled the atmosphere? Or are
we witnessing the inevitable end of an era?

Dunno. I just ignore the traditional monthly debates on spam
filtering philosophy. The ISP business isn't exactly the shining star
of Wall Street or the "new economy" as it was in the late 1990's.
Many former server sitters and adminimonsters have gone on to other
jobs and investments, precipitating a reduction in readership.

Post by Mark
- What might we do to raise ba.internet's profile?
How about a barbecue or a concert or a bake sale
or a group shoplifting excursion to Stoneridge
Shopping Center?

Dunno. We've had group gatherings of the ba.mountain-folk regulars in
the past but not for several years. I dunno how such a gathering
would work. It would probably degenerate into yet another spam
filtering philosophical debate.

[Philip J. Koenig]

In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@comix.santa-
cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) writes...

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Mark
- What might we do to raise ba.internet's profile?
How about a barbecue or a concert or a bake sale
or a group shoplifting excursion to Stoneridge
Shopping Center?

Dunno. We've had group gatherings of the ba.mountain-folk regulars in
the past but not for several years. I dunno how such a gathering
would work. It would probably degenerate into yet another spam
filtering philosophical debate.

Actually I'm of the opinion that the nature of the online
venue tends to exaggerate those kinds of arguments and
differences between people. My guess is that when people
meet in person and are no longer just "talking heads", there
might be a greater degree of general civility and comraderie
than in an online forum.

I think it's harder to just sit there and engage in narrowly-
focused ideological arguments when you're someplace in the
company of real, breathing human-beings and it's apparent they
are much more multi-faceted than just a electronic head with
an opinion on spam blocklists.

Hope springs eternal, I guess. :-)

[Mike Stump]

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Actually I'm of the opinion that the nature of the online
venue tends to exaggerate those kinds of arguments and
differences between people. My guess is that when people
meet in person and are no longer just "talking heads", there
might be a greater degree of general civility and comraderie
than in an online forum.

I completely agree. [ checking quoted author ] Hum, wait a minute,
that can't be right, we can't agree, therefore, you have to form a new
opinion, I had it first. :-)

[Philip J. Koenig]

Post by Mike Stump

Post by Philip J. Koenig
Actually I'm of the opinion that the nature of the online
venue tends to exaggerate those kinds of arguments and
differences between people. My guess is that when people
meet in person and are no longer just "talking heads", there
might be a greater degree of general civility and comraderie
than in an online forum.

I completely agree. [ checking quoted author ] Hum, wait a minute,
that can't be right, we can't agree, therefore, you have to form a new
opinion, I had it first. :-)

Heh. Well for the record, I am not a killfile-oriented type
except in exceptional circumstances. I am open to agreeing
or disagreeing with anyone, given the nature of their argument
du jour. Even if they almost always disagree with me, I know
that they may someday agree on something.

"Scratch the surface of a cynic and you may find a frustrated optimist".

That's me.

[Brad Allen]

" I completely agree. [ checking quoted author ] Hum, wait a minute,
" that can't be right, we can't agree, therefore, you have to form a
" new opinion, I had it first. :-)

I disagree with your principle of disagreement; you may still agree,
and have more commonality.

[Brad Allen]

" 8 July 1990 - 7 July 1991: 9 threads
" 8 July 1991 - 7 July 1992: 152 threads
" 8 July 1992 - 7 July 1993: 450 threads
" 8 July 1993 - 7 July 1994: 904 threads

" 8 July 2003 - 7 July 2004: 10300 threads

We're still quite high. One shouldn't measure usage in bubble periods
as part of a necessary comparative rationalization for non-bubble
rationalized entities. ba.internet was created because we knew it
would be useful during a time to find and discuss internet connecting
opportunities in the area, which was supporting and predicting a
period of establishment, and also because it would be useful to
discuss Internet in other ways; now that it's easy to find a more
mundane list of Internet in BA, using ba.internet isn't going to be as
useful, but there are those other aspects of Internet that are still
interesting; here are still some things that make it useful. We also
knew that after establishment periods, we would need it to discuss
items in the area regarding Internet. And, we're not completely
finished with establishment.

For instance, when we get fiber to every house, someone here will post
about which area they live in, how much it costs, what the terms of
contract are, who is selling it, then someone else can explain someone
else who might sell it, and what terms of contract they might have.
That is extremely useful establishment information that's still in the
future. (Another establishment example is we're already in
establishment period for radio, which will probably last for a while.)
Another establishment example is if and when Sonic.net is no longer
allowed to use other suppliers' networks to get to their customers;
contracts will change in lots of very interesting ways that we can
discuss here, which of course is another useful aspect of ba.internet.
We have a long way to go before we've exhausted establishment stuff.

Another example is someone comes in with a non-narrow set of
requirements (like they realize they're a real person or something
complex like that, not just a consumer), and want to discuss ways to
handle that situation; here, we can do that, using local comparisons.
Unfortunately, that has redundancy with less spatial-based groups, but
there are always a few things that are regional: support crews,
dispatchers, local policies, local practices, unique overlap fields,
and other things can make location matter, even with a small number of
well established large suppliers. Look at the quality of local
commercial agricultural produce: it used to be close to organic, but
now you have to use a different market segment to get the same
quality. Things that change slowly still need discussing.

I found it interesting that most of my use of ba.internet was during
non-bubble times, and I found it useful. When there's fewer messages,
you just have to try harder, and it's easier to read everything.

If we re-support regional distributions, we could eliminate most to
all regional groups, and just use categories in the main USENET
system. Part of that support would be getting reader client programs
to look at distribution in their selection sets. This might befit
globalization better, but I think it's also a system design issue.

Globalization doesn't eliminate all the people in the local area; it
just tries.

[Philip J. Koenig]

In article <UhhHc.1279$***@typhoon.sonic.net>, ***@usenet.q.net (Brad Allen)
writes...

Post by Brad Allen
If we re-support regional distributions, we could eliminate most to
all regional groups, and just use categories in the main USENET
system. Part of that support would be getting reader client programs
to look at distribution in their selection sets. This might befit
globalization better, but I think it's also a system design issue.
Globalization doesn't eliminate all the people in the local area; it
just tries.

Personally I still miss the BBS days, as so many of them really
had a local community quality and feel that is rarely the case
with general internet forums and "hang outs" now. By definition,
the majority of BBS users were local, so that was a defining
element.

Craigslist is successful in this way to some extent, but it
seems like one of the few. So many of the other entities are
either dominated by marketing/profit motivations, or the visions
of grandeur fueled by the ego-stimulating idea of trying to
suck in as many possible users from all around the world as
you possibly can.

[t***@gmail.com]

Get real and original IDs and Passport ,Visa,Driving License,ID CARDS,marriage certificates,diplomas etc.


We offer only original high-quality IDs and Passport ,Visa,Driving License,ID CARDS,marriage certificates,diplomas etc buy now high quality-We have the best HOLOGRAMS AND DUPLICATING MACHINES With over
13million of out documents circulating over the world.
-IDs Scan-yes...
-HOLOGRAMS: IDENTICAL
-BAR CODES: IDS SCAN
-UV: YES
-Passports
FAKE IDS WITH FAST SHIPPING - EMAIL SUPPORT
Fake ID's Over state drivers license cards and State ID
cards available. Includes state driver's license hologram and magnetic strip
or bar code on back. 2 business day shipping order (shipping and
handling). The BEST authentic fake ID's on the web.
Same quality, high resolution that Department of Motor Vehicles use.
Send current .JPG or .GIF of current license with picture
and changes in NAME, DOB, LICENSE #, RESTRICTIONS, etc.
we produce the best fake ID online we sell UK/EU fake ID, Canadian fake ID, Australian fake ID and fake IDs for many other countries from fake passports to fake driving licenses to fake bank statements we have your identification needs covered. Our fake IDs include all security features such as genuine holograms, ultraviolet watermarks, intaglio printing, special paper, fluorescent dyes, RFID chips, bar codes corresponding to your details and more. Our fake IDs are identical to the real thing no other site will offer you this quality we are the best.
new identity protect your privacy and take back your freedom..

Contact e-mails:=========== ***@yahoo.com

General support:=========== ***@yahoo.com

Contact Number:============ [phone]

Skype...douglaswilliam411