Better forum

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:40:38 +0100
"js.mdnq" <js_adddot+mdng at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 22:14:57 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
> > On 12/6/2012 8:50 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> >> The latter is caused by bad(ly configured) NNTP clients, not 
> >> the server.
> >
> > That brings up another advantage of NNTP servers. It is very 
> > old technology, meaning the bugs have been worked out of it 
> > long ago. There is no constant issue of upgrading to the latest 
> > version to fix some obscure bugs, etc. Just turn it on and it 
> > works.
> >
> > And, lastly, there's a wonderful effect of NNTP not being where 
> > the "cool guys" are. The spammers overlook us! Sure, we get a 
> > drive-by slamming from a spammer maybe once a month, but by and 
> > large NNTP flies under the radar these days.
> 
> Hehe, it's cause no one uses it! if you check out most groups 
> they are full of spam ;/

This one isn't. Neither is Vibe.d's: http://news.rejectedsoftware.com

> Only good spam filters can control it to 
> any degree. With a BB, you require people to register which will 
> stop 95% of spam. The other 5% could be fixed by asking more 
> complex questions, stop posting of suspected spammers. Do not 
> allow new users to post more than 1 post an hour. Allow certain 
> people(not necessarily moderators) to kill spammers. Block IP's 
> from registering more than once a month or so, etc...
> 
> There are many potential ways to reduce spam to near zero. Most 
> BB's I've used have near zero spam without any complex spam 
> protection mechanisms(as far as I know).

This one has near-zero spam *without* putting all those roadblocks in
front of users.

> 
> BB's have the ability to edit,

Limited editing would be nice (ex: for up to a few minutes after
initial posting), but replying with an addendum is pretty damn easy,
too. So this is a fairly minor thing.

> delete,

So does this. Most of the few troll posts we get *do* get deleted.

> and move posts.

Meh. Only rarely useful, and even then it's not really that big of a
deal.

> Allow easy image insertion,

That could be nice, but inserting a URL to an image is super-easy, too.

Besides, most web-based message boards make it too easy to insert
images. I've seen FAAAR too many message boards where every damn user
has about 3-5 images that they have auto-inserted into EVERY damn one
of their posts. The whole board just becomes a garbage heap of
pointless, idiotic avatars, with only a teensy amount of *real* content
in between all the visual narcissism.

> private messaging,

WTF? It's called "email".

I'll never understand why the "millennials" insist on re-inventing
established, open, and universally COMPATIBLE technologies with
a myriad of isolated, proprietary, walled-off equivalents. (Not that I
mean to single out that generation to pick on - I hate all generations,
including my own <g>)

> sticky threads,

A rather minor feature. If something needs to be "sticky" it may as
well just be a straight web page, maybe with a comment section if need
be.

> Also, the most popular BB's are pretty well tested because they 
> are more widely used than nntp.

Like phpbb? ;) (Only kidding...)

> So while it is true they are 
> newer and more sophisticated they also are actively supported.
> 
> IMO, the only downside is supporting legacy users who refuse to 
> make the transition. I think they are just being hard headed 
> though...

Calling us hard-headed old fogeys (even if not in such words) isn't
really a compelling argument, especially to us hard-headed old fogeys.