A real Forum for D

[Vladimir Panteleev]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:28:20 +0200, Unknown W. Brackets  
<usefirstnameinstead-newsgroup at unknownbrackets.org> wrote:

> Comments interpolated below.

I believe this is the common way to reply to a post on a newsgroup :)

> These are both very reasonable criticisms.  But, the size of the tree  
> can be trivially increased (if installing it as software, and  
> customizing the skin.)

I wouldn't call making custom skins "trivial"...

> Well, I think a group of reasonable can self-moderate, to a large  
> degree, and I've seen it happen.
>
> I don't really think disorganization is a benefit, myself.  I think  
> having a clear structure (ironically) to the conversation in a linear  
> format is a benefit.
>
> Also, since people who (very arguably) are more likely to self moderate  
> are also the primary audience for newsgroups (being that less tech savvy  
> people don't bother, typically), I don't really think it's a problem  
> worth trying to solve.

But why would you consider subthreads undesirable? In a threaded view,  
subthreads you are not interested in are a non-issue. What you call "self  
moderation" seems to me like an artificial restriction that has no reason  
to be there.

Netiquette still asks that posters substantially diverging from the  
current subject to amend the subject line, and - if entirely off-topic  
discussion is unavoidable - mark it as such with the [OT] tag.

> I'll note that I don't really care for things like Reddit/Slashdot, and  
> usually use forums to discuss things like in these newsgroups: code,  
> ideas, methodologies, issues/feedback, projects, etc.  Directed,  
> interesting things.  Not just a free-for-all of thoughts on why a  
> snail's shell was painted with bright colors by someone.  Those need  
> threading.

Yes, context matters a lot.

> Sure, I agree.  Every human is biased in some way, and there exist  
> separate solutions not only to refine and innovate and specialize, but  
> also for the different ways people think and interact.

"Bias" doesn't have much meaning when there is no norm. The reality is  
that people have varying expectations based on their past experiences and  
on the circumstances at hand. The only correct course of action is to  
accept and take into account all of these factors, without excuses or  
prejudice, and figure out a solution that accommodates most users.

In our case, it's clear that we have users who prefer linear and threaded  
views, and web-based vs. dedicated UIs - therefore, the solution is  
obvious: choice.

>> But I agree that Joe Average doesn't need threading. Still, choice is
>> good, as the presence of choice opens the doors for others to discover
>> subjectively-superior ways of communication. :)
>
> Sure, but I just don't think it's fair to say that people don't use  
> threading because they "don't get it," or that people who want D  
> discussion to happen with more modernly open means of involvement are  
> "less techy."

Well, after seeing the rather sorry implementations of threaded views in  
forums, it certainly does look like the forum developers "didn't get it"  
when their users asked for a thread view.

-- 
Best regards,
  Vladimir                            mailto:vladimir at thecybershadow.net