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
