Better forum

[H. S. Teoh]

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