|
Posted by Peter J. Holzer on May 11, 2008, 5:48 pm
Please log in for more thread options >>> There is no innovation here. Yeah, there is an attempt to change
>>> something but not all change qualifies as innovation. No one's cute
>>> color scheme, liberal use of different font sizes, cute little graphics
>>> provides any enhanced value to me.
>>
>> I disagree with that. I consider especially graphics to be very valuable
>> in explaining a problem or a solution. We can make do with crude ASCII
>> graphics (or less crude Unicode graphics), or we can include links to a
>> graphic on some webserver, but the ability to include graphics
>> (preferably vector graphics) in a posting would sometimes (not often, I
>> agree) help to get a point across a lot better.
>
> The principle is sound - a picture is worth a thousand words.
>
> But the implementation might be difficult. Usenet is propagated across many
> thousands of local servers, and each message takes up space on each one of
> those servers. To manage storage, messages are only retained for a fixed
> amount of time, with that time being far, far shorter in groups that allow
> binary attachments such as images. GigaNews, for instance, retains messages
> in "binaries" groups for 200 days,
If they can afford to keep the (mostly automated) flood of pictures,
videos, sound-tracks, etc. in the binary groups for 200 days, they won't have a
problem with a few hand-crafted sketches in tech groups. You just very
effectively argued against your own point.
But GigaNews isn't an average news server. Most newsservers (by numbers,
but possibly not by users) are small, often run by individuals, and
restricted to text only. They might have problems if their bandwidth and
diskspace requirements triple because of HTML, or multiply by 10 because
people include video sequences as signatures. But I don't really think
so. Usenet was a major bandwidth-hog in the 1990's, but now it is
insignificant compared to the web, P2P traffic, etc.
> The switch to a rich-text + graphics medium would require a lot of work by
> a lot of people, and would increase storage requirements, decrease the time
> that messages are retained on local servers, or both. It's really rather
> hard to justify that time & expense when the web is sitting right next door
> with all the multimedia one can handle. :-)
Usenet is very different from web forums. Among the most important
differences (for me) are:
* Usenet defines a common transport and message format, but no user
interface. Every user can choose the NUA he is most comfortable with.
On a web formum you have to use the interface provided by the forum
maintainer.
* Newsgroups exist independently from any particular server. No one
owns a newsgroup and can shut it down or censor it (with the exception
of moderated newsgroups). A web forum is usually moderated and can
vanish at any time if the maintainer isn't interested in it any more.
* Newsgroups form some kind of coherent whole. I have get a complete
list of all the newsgroups in comp.ALL and choose the most
appropriate. They don't overlap much. And I can crosspost to a
different group and set a followup-to header to continue a discussion
in a better group if it has drifted from the topic. Each web forum is
isolated.
* I can read all newsgroups through a single interface. With web forums,
I have to poll a lot of different servers. RSS makes that simpler, but
it only provides an overview. To get at the actual content, I still
have to visit lots of different web sites, each with its own
idiosyncratic user interface.
These are characteristics of usenet I like and want to preserve. I do
read a lot of newsgroups. I also read a lot of mailing lists (which
share the first and last point with newsgroups, but lack the other two).
I don't read any web forum regularly. They are just too much effort.
hp
| 
XML Sitemap