Post by Tony HillMany of these things can/could be done on web-based forums, it's just
usually a pain in the ass and not universally implemented. In cases
where these features are implemented, they are usually quite poorly
done.
I agree. Note that my original statement you responded to was "No real good
reason that it can't emulate the best features of NNTP (only
time and a bit of coding)."
Post by Tony HillErr, did ya read my message Deano?! I just gave several good reasons
why web-based forums are as good at distributing content as Usenet!
Sure, some of these things COULD be fixed in the future, but they
aren't there now, and the last one (having to go to different web
sites for different topics) is unlikely to ever be fixed due to the
very nature of web-based content.
My post was about the fact that Usenet is not inherently 'better' than the
Web for distributing content. Some people have tried to make the argument
that it is, but haven't posted any reasons why. What you have done is give
reasons why you prefer Usenet (better tools, etc.).
Post by Tony HillThe very nature of a web-based forum system means that there will
never be a single source for content on different subjects like there
is with Usenet.
OTOH, Usenet has its own problems.
1) If your ISP doesn't have a new server, you have to pay extra (or hope to
find a free one that stays free).
2) Messages may get dropped by your server, or cancelled messages may (read:
will) get propagated and not deleted from every server
3) Most news servers carry only a subset of all available groups.
4) Most free news servers limit the number of messages they will keep in any
newsgroup, and may lag by as much as a week or more.
5) If a newsgroup becomes unused, it is all but impossible to remove it.
6) Once a newsgroup is established, the charter cannot be changed as a
general rule.
There are other drawbacks to Usenet, just as there are drawbacks to
web-based forums.
As for Google - it is *not* Usenet, so you cannot use that as an inherent
superiority of Usenet. It *is* possible for someone to create an archive
of all known web-forums, just as Google archives websites today. It is only
a question of whether there is a market for it.
Post by Tony HillI can get groups for thousands of different subjects
from a single Usenet server, but would have to go to at least several
hundred websites to do the same with web-based forums.
*If* you have a good news server. My own experience is as follows:
1) My first ISP carried only limited newsgroups. Later it upgraded, but
messages were dropped frequently. Even later it had entire days when it
was unavailable. Eventually, they stopped supporting a news server.
Initially, they allowed cancel messages, but later stopped allowing it so I
could not cancel any messages I posted by mistake.
2) I looked for free news servers. At first, I found a few that would allow
posting, but most would block access after a day or two. Eventually, I
found that most 'free' news servers were not intended to be free, but had
just failed to put in any security. Once the 'free news server' lists had
posted it, they were no longer free. I looked at Supernews and a few
others, but didn't want to pay extra for news
3) My second ISP had a news server, but it was unavailable a fair amount of
time. I changed ISPs shortly thereafter because I got DSL.
4) My current ISP has a news server, obviously - but messages are dropped
fairly frequently. On a number of occasions I have not seen the reply to
one of my posts and had to go to Google to read it. I'm sure I haven't
seen replies to other posts as well. This one does not allow cancel
messages either.
Post by Tony HillThere's also
the speed/latency issue, which I can't see going away any time soon.
It has nothing to do with 'speed' or 'latency'. It has to do with
bandwidth. Most website forums have a lot of graphics to download, so it is
slow. Usenet transfers only text (for non-binary groups) as a single file.
HTML messages are a pain in the arse, and slow things down considerably.
Post by Tony HillEven with broadband connections, web-based forums are VERY painfully
slow in comparison to a newsreader where the messages are stored
locally.
What you are experiencing is the fact that headers are transmitted as a
group, and then you download individual messages. There is actually no
reason that this couldn't be done by a web-forum using cookies.
Post by Tony HillHeck, even if they aren't stored locally, messages are
stored on my ISPs newserver, which I have a very fast and low-latency
connection to as compared to more webpages.
Your connection is the same no matter what server you are connected to.
Generally, news servers are being accessed less than a web server, so the
response time will be faster.
Post by Tony HillNot really, Google isn't a web-based forum, it's an archive of Usenet
messages. Great for searching for answers to questions, terrible for
posting though. If I happen to find a current thread on Google that I
want to join in, I'll find the newsgroup on my ISP's newserver and
load it into Agent.
Google *is* web based. Think about it for a minute. The Usenet archives
are in a data base. When you perform a search, the data base is queried and
an HTML web page is formatted with the headers. You click on one, and
another web page is formatted with another list of headers (threaded this
time). You click on a message, and another HTML page is formatted with the
message text. This is all a web based forum does as well.
The reason that Google can easily do this is because they get a news feed
every day (multiple times a day, no doubt), which they can then store in a
data base. BTW - they *don't* archive attached binaries for obvious reasons
(at least, last time I checked), so it isn't a perfect archive. And, there
are some messages that are dropped (just as with a 'real' news server). I
know this because some of mine from the 'John Corse' days were not there
when I looked for them (I did find them in my 'sent items' folder however -
which I have an archive of for everything ever sent by me).
The bottom line here is that I am not questioning your preferences, I am
simply pointing out that there is nothing inherently superior about Usenet
for distribution of content, nor for having a conversation. The tools may
be superior at this time, but then it has been around a lot longer than the
Web. Some prefer it because it is what they 'grew up with' on the
Internet. By the same token, people who have grown up with the Web and
web-based forums may think otherwise. If it becomes a market opportunity,
someone will create a web-based forum product that will set a 'standard'
that users will desire - and then it would become more feasible to create a
'portal' for web-based forums (it is actually possible today if someone
wanted to create a website for it).
Regards,
Dean