"Jude" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/28/2011 12:12 AM, Walter Bright wrote: >> >> Generally, they suck. They just don't get what a threaded view is. >> Newsreaders solved this problem decades ago. A thread is not a >> topic. It's a view showing who replied to which message. Click to >> expand at each branching point, click to contract, click to see a >> particular message. At each point, you can see which messages >> you've read, and which you haven't. >> >> I've never, ever seen forum software that can do that. If there is >> one, point me to an example. >> >> Every newsreader does this. > That's nice. You're just forgetting the fact that oh, you know, there > are a lot of people who just don't care about "proper" threading. >> >> >>> 2. I thought that that was pretty standard for forums? >>> Highlighting for threads you've seen and threads you haven't... >>> not for individual messages, but the last number (25 or so) >>> messages you've seen. >> >> Again, the forum software writers just don't get it. It has to be >> per message. Why? So in a larger thread, you can instantly see what >> is read and what isn't. This is NOT equivalent to a chronological >> sort. I do not read threads linearly. >> >>> 3. click the nice little subscribe to thread button and it tells >>> you if anyone else submits something. >> >> Sorry, but that's not it. I want to see if someone replied to a >> *particular* message. >> >>> These are all things that forums have had for a while... >> >> I've used many forum softwares. They all just DON'T GET IT. > I for one am glad they "DON'T GET IT." I can't stand threaded view. > Tried it, too much work for so little gain. > > What I don't get is why you are soo vocal about such a tiny, little > thing. > Check the thread with your threaded views. No one has suggested that > we need to REPLACE the current newsgroup. > > No one has suggested anything more than "hey, maybe we should try to > cater to a larger audience, instead of just those who agree that a NG > is the best way to communicate ever."
Do show the results of the study you did that shows the likely effect on the S/N for the D NG when a web forum is introduced. Hey, I'm all for the idea of a web forum if there is a bit of some kind that shows where the post originated. There is potential then to raise the S/N that way. But that's "neither here nor there". I theorize that the "S/N" in here would drop with introduction of a web forum. Anyone who wants to know and needs to know D, probably already does and is in here discussing it. I think the idea that a web forum would somehow bring more substantive content to the NG (not that anyone made such a suggestion) is ill-formed. That there are those who would wish to and prefer to use a web interface (which indeed perplexes me), is valid though. I don't think the backends are the same though. Unless you just want a web interface to NGs, but then that is limiting to those features that web forum afficionados want. The suggestion is so much more than just "Why not put up a web forum!". In a couple of minutes, and one paragraph above, I've noted some major issues with such a PROJECT. > > I've noticed that you haven't made an appearance on irc in a while. > It doesn't have threaded views either, but I don't think that you > would doubt it's usefulness. > > People like it, and I for one really appreciate it's existence. > It has helped me out quite a bit, and I definitely would not have > learned as much as I know(very little btw) about d if it didn't exist. > > - From my point of view, we have a few people who think that it would > be > nice to have another method of communication, and people who would > like to restrict other peoples choice based on nothing more than an > antiquated black and white view of the world. > > I have yet to see a 'valid' reason against having a forum. > > If you don't want to have an official forum, that is fine. > If you refuse to allow it on d-p-l, that's fine too. > If you won't use it, that's fine. > If you don't think that it would gain enough attraction to be > worthwhile, great. Say so. > If you think that it would split the community too much, speak your > mind. > > Those are all valid reasons to disagree. > > "Forums are lame and just "DON'T GET IT" and I don't like them and > EVERYONE must agree that my method is superior and use my preferred > method" is NOT a valid reason. While he may have seemed to have done that, I'll bet that he had some issues in mind, as I showed examples of above, too. I can easily retort back at you: "You can't just jump in and start coding. Even before design, there will be feasibility studies, analysis, planning, etc.". You seem to be saying, "why not put up a forum? It's so simple!", but in reality, it is a major project, no, multiple projects under the umbrella of "program" perhaps. There is "standard" method for going about such a thing: evolution of the idea into an evolved concept and shared vision, feasibility/impact studies, analysis, ... yada... then if it looks like a go the other projects. Yes, that "simple little idea" of throwing up a web forum, actually alludes to a number of separate projects, most of which are to precede actually "throwing up" (eww) anything.
