www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Better forum

reply "js.mdnq" <js_adddot+mdng gmail.com> writes:
I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will not 
post as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to get the 
message or for it to be announced.

IMO there are much better forum software out there that would 
make it easier to communicate about D than the current method.

http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy to 
setup.

The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!
Dec 05 2012
next sibling parent reply "Rob T" <rob ucora.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 18:24:04 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:

 I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will 
 not post as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to 
 get the message or for it to be announced.

 IMO there are much better forum software out there that would 
 make it easier to communicate about D than the current method.

 http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy 
 to setup.

 The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!


Here's another split thread?

My understanding is that the forum is something made out of an 
nntp news server, and some people use a newsreader client instead 
of way us web based forum folks go about it. Why use nntp for 
this forum?

--rt
Dec 05 2012
next sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, December 05, 2012 21:42:00 Rob T wrote:

 On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 18:24:04 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:

 I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will
 not post as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to
 get the message or for it to be announced.
 
 IMO there are much better forum software out there that would
 make it easier to communicate about D than the current method.
 
 http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy
 to setup.
 
 The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!


 
 Here's another split thread?
 
 My understanding is that the forum is something made out of an
 nntp news server, and some people use a newsreader client instead
 of way us web based forum folks go about it. Why use nntp for
 this forum?


There are 3 ways to access this newsgroup:

1. As an nntp newsgroup.

2. As a mailing list.

3. Via forum.dlang.org which puts a forum interface on top of the nntp 
newsgroup.


regardless, we're not moving to some other forum software. I don't know if 
there even _is_ any other forum software that sits on top of an nntp 
newsgroup, and we're not moving off of an nntp newsgroup. On top of that, the 
software that forum.dlang.org uses is written in D by one of the posters here, 
and we've gotten quite a lot of good press for how fast and responsive it is. 
I don't doubt that it could be improved, but we're not getting rid of it in 
favor of something else, and whatever improvements are made to it need to not 
conflict with the fact that it's just one of the ways to interact with the 
newsgroup (e.g. adding voting would make no sense, because only 
forum.dlang.org would see it).

- Jonathan M Davis
Dec 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
12/6/2012 12:42 AM, Rob T пишет:

 On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 18:24:04 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:

 I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will not post
 as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to get the message
 or for it to be announced.

 IMO there are much better forum software out there that would make it
 easier to communicate about D than the current method.

 http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy to setup.

 The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!


 Here's another split thread?

 My understanding is that the forum is something made out of an nntp news
 server, and some people use a newsreader client instead of way us web
 based forum folks go about it. Why use nntp for this forum?


It's the other way around - it's an NNTP server originally.
The web forum is a recent addition as no extra hassle way to start using 
it. The hassle being installing newsreader & getting it to work properly 
on all machines you may want to use.

In the end it opens the newsgroup to a wider audience I guess.

Once I got used to threading I'd hate to switch to the "stream of 
messages" style that typical web forums produce.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Dec 05 2012
parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 05.12.2012 21:55, schrieb Dmitry Olshansky:

 12/6/2012 12:42 AM, Rob T пишет:

 On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 18:24:04 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:

 I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will not post
 as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to get the message
 or for it to be announced.

 IMO there are much better forum software out there that would make it
 easier to communicate about D than the current method.

 http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy to setup.

 The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!


 Here's another split thread?

 My understanding is that the forum is something made out of an nntp news
 server, and some people use a newsreader client instead of way us web
 based forum folks go about it. Why use nntp for this forum?


 It's the other way around - it's an NNTP server originally.
 The web forum is a recent addition as no extra hassle way to start using
 it. The hassle being installing newsreader & getting it to work properly
 on all machines you may want to use.

 In the end it opens the newsgroup to a wider audience I guess.

 Once I got used to threading I'd hate to switch to the "stream of
 messages" style that typical web forums produce.


I love NNTP, and loath the plague of web newsgroups.

The web access is very good to access the forums when I am on computers 
where I don't have the proper rights to have a newsreader installed, but
that is about it on my case.

Maybe I am too old school, but I like my usenet.

--
Paulo
Dec 05 2012
prev sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 20:42:01 UTC, Rob T wrote:

 On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 18:24:04 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:

 I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will 
 not post as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to 
 get the message or for it to be announced.

 IMO there are much better forum software out there that would 
 make it easier to communicate about D than the current method.

 http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy 
 to setup.

 The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!


 Here's another split thread?


No, the user has simply submitted the same post twice (because it 
was impossible to tell if the first one got through - see 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/yodabgfvkapgmrpeeugu forum.dlang.org).
Dec 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/5/12 1:24 PM, js.mdnq wrote:

 I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will not post
 as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to get the message or
 for it to be announced.

 IMO there are much better forum software out there that would make it
 easier to communicate about D than the current method.

 http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy to setup.

 The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!


I think that's a largely solved problem, as most who use 
http://forum.dlang.org love it over other systems, and for those who 
aren't into web forums there are good alternatives.

Of the features listed on http://www.mybb.com/features, it would be 
great to include voting. Other than that, clearly we should on fixing 
the issues with the system (as opposed to switching to another one).


Andrei
Dec 05 2012
next sibling parent reply "js.mdnq" <js_adddot+mdng gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 21:55:19 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 12/5/12 1:24 PM, js.mdnq wrote:

 I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will 
 not post
 as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to get the 
 message or
 for it to be announced.

 IMO there are much better forum software out there that would 
 make it
 easier to communicate about D than the current method.

 http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy 
 to setup.

 The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!


 I think that's a largely solved problem, as most who use 
 http://forum.dlang.org love it over other systems, and for 
 those who aren't into web forums there are good alternatives.

 Of the features listed on http://www.mybb.com/features, it 
 would be great to include voting. Other than that, clearly we 
 should on fixing the issues with the system (as opposed to 
 switching to another one).


 Andrei


It would seem to me that nntp is somewhat dead(little support 
from software devs) and while I like nntp to some degree it just 
lacks too many feature compared to BB's.

I would think it would be better to have a BB forum then try to 
interface to that(it should be relatively easy). This way you 
have all the modern features of a BB system but still allow 
legacy users to get their fix the way they want it.

Basically your stuck with the nntp protocol and trying to upgrade 
it is futile. (and talk about spam, newsgroups are loaded with 
them).

Since BB's are pretty popular, free, and usually well designed, I 
wouldn't see why it would hurt to even have them in parallel. 
Eventually the legacy users will come over from/to the dark side 
when they see how much better it is.
Dec 05 2012
next sibling parent "Mike Parker" <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 22:32:41 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:

 Basically your stuck with the nntp protocol and trying to 
 upgrade it is futile. (and talk about spam, newsgroups are 
 loaded with them).

 Since BB's are pretty popular, free, and usually well designed, 
 I wouldn't see why it would hurt to even have them in parallel. 
 Eventually the legacy users will come over from/to the dark 
 side when they see how much better it is.


We've had big debates about this a couple of times over the years 
(I'm firmly in the BB camp and this group is the only reason I 
have a newsreader installed). But each debate failed to even make 
a dent. The people you need to convince aren't going to be 
convinced. Period. So we're going to be stuck with NNTP for a 
long time to come.
Dec 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On 2012-32-05 23:12, js.mdnq <js_adddot+mdng gmail.com> wrote:


 Eventually the legacy users will come over from/to the dark side when  
 they see how much better it is.


Uhm. No.

And not just because we're old and grumpy, but because NNTP has some
serious benefits in comparison with bloated, painful, ugly, stupid
bloated forums that are mostly an impediment. Trust me, if we had a BB
instead of NNTP, D would not have been what it is.

-- 
Simen
Dec 06 2012
prev sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:32:40 +0100
"js.mdnq" <js_adddot+mdng gmail.com> wrote:

 
 It would seem to me that nntp is somewhat dead(little support 
 from software devs)


I'm having a hard time thinking of even one email client that doesn't
also support NNTP.


 and while I like nntp to some degree it just 
 lacks too many feature compared to BB's.
 


I don't find most of those features particularly useful. Avatars? Blech.


 Basically your stuck with the nntp protocol and trying to upgrade 
 it is futile. (and talk about spam, newsgroups are loaded with 
 them).
 


This one only gets a little bit of spam.


 Since BB's are pretty popular, free, and usually well designed, I 
 wouldn't see why it would hurt to even have them in parallel. 
 Eventually the legacy users will come over from/to the dark side 
 when they see how much better it is.
 


I used to be die-hard message board fan for many years. Then I came
over to D (before the good web interface it has now) and started using
NNTP with a proper non-web client. *Now* I find NNTP to be vastly
better.

My *one* problem with NNTP is that there's no standard and
universally-supported URL system for it, especially not one that takes
into account the fact that some newsgroups (like this one) exist only
on ONE specific server.

Also, regarding all the talk about "legacy", I should point out that
"newer" is not equivalent to "better". (Just look at Win8! ;) )
Dec 06 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Rob T" <rob ucora.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 21:55:19 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:


 I think that's a largely solved problem, as most who use 
 http://forum.dlang.org love it over other systems, and for 
 those who aren't into web forums there are good alternatives.


I'm looking at the URL in my browser, and it's using 
http://forum.dlang.org.

Sorry but I don't love it. I can't edit posts, it frequently 
hangs when refreshing, hangs when posting, and it breaks up 
threads frequently (like this one), which is rather unpleasant if 
you're trying to follow a lengthy conversation.

My guess is that the people using a newsreader are OK, but a ton 
of people prefer to use web browsers, I would hazard a guess that 
most people who use the Internet don't even know what a 
newsreader is.


 Of the features listed on http://www.mybb.com/features, it 
 would be great to include voting. Other than that, clearly we 
 should on fixing the issues with the system (as opposed to 
 switching to another one).


Someone really needs to take a look at what's going wrong and try 
to fix it, and if it cannot be fixed, than I would say an 
alternative should be seriously considered.

--rt
Dec 05 2012
next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 01:13:50 UTC, Rob T wrote:

 it frequently hangs when refreshing, hangs when posting, and it 
 breaks up threads frequently (like this one), which is rather 
 unpleasant if you're trying to follow a lengthy conversation.


Working on it.


 Someone really needs to take a look at what's going wrong and 
 try to fix it


Why not you?

https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed
Dec 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "js.mdnq" <js_adddot+mdng gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 01:13:50 UTC, Rob T wrote:

 On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 21:55:19 UTC, Andrei 
 Alexandrescu wrote:


 I think that's a largely solved problem, as most who use 
 http://forum.dlang.org love it over other systems, and for 
 those who aren't into web forums there are good alternatives.


 I'm looking at the URL in my browser, and it's using 
 http://forum.dlang.org.

 Sorry but I don't love it. I can't edit posts, it frequently 
 hangs when refreshing, hangs when posting, and it breaks up 
 threads frequently (like this one), which is rather unpleasant 
 if you're trying to follow a lengthy conversation.

 My guess is that the people using a newsreader are OK, but a 
 ton of people prefer to use web browsers, I would hazard a 
 guess that most people who use the Internet don't even know 
 what a newsreader is.


 Of the features listed on http://www.mybb.com/features, it 
 would be great to include voting. Other than that, clearly we 
 should on fixing the issues with the system (as opposed to 
 switching to another one).


 Someone really needs to take a look at what's going wrong and 
 try to fix it, and if it cannot be fixed, than I would say an 
 alternative should be seriously considered.

 --rt


I personally don't see why we can't have both. It really 
absolutely makes no sense. There are no laws of physics that is 
preventing them both from being used. Those that hate web based 
can stick to their own and those that hate nntp can stick to the 
web browsing. I do not use nntp simply because all the groups I 
used to frequent are dead. For me, while nntp doesn't allow 
editing, it wasn't a huge deal(at least most of the time).

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.

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.
Dec 05 2012
parent reply "anonymous" <anonymous example.com> writes:
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 01:41:55 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:
[...]

 I personally don't see why we can't have both. It really 
 absolutely makes no sense. There are no laws of physics that is 
 preventing them both from being used. Those that hate web based 
 can stick to their own and those that hate nntp can stick to 
 the web browsing. I do not use nntp simply because all the 
 groups I used to frequent are dead. For me, while nntp doesn't 
 allow editing, it wasn't a huge deal(at least most of the time).


We do have the web interface. If you want to start a separate
forum, that would mean splitting the community.


 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.


 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.


Proper threading is a pretty strong point for NNTP. The D forum
routinely messes it up, though. That reeaally should be tackled.

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.
Dec 05 2012
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
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
Dec 05 2012
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:40:10 -0800
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 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.
 


There is such a thing as limited editing. Ex: Allow edits for maybe
5-10 minutes after initial posting, or until someone replies, whichever
comes first. That sort of thing works out fine, and I'd actually quite
like to have it.

However, our current approach of amending a post via a follow-up reply
is still something I find perfectly acceptable.

I do think what's needed though is an updated equivalent to NNTP, so
that NNTP's few limitations can be overcome without forcing the
abomination of web "apps" on everyone. Unfortunately that'll probably
never happen, except possibly as some goofy REST API.
Dec 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 12/05/2012 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:

 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

I've been on plenty of forums where editing is allowed, and I hate it. 
If you're changing what you said, you're participating in a wiki page, 
not a conversation.
Dec 05 2012
parent reply "js.mdnq" <js_adddot+mdng gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 02:59:37 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski 
wrote:

 On 12/05/2012 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:

 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

 I've been on plenty of forums where editing is allowed, and I 
 hate it. If you're changing what you said, you're participating 
 in a wiki page, not a conversation.


Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that 
changes the intent that I should just leave it alone or make a 
new post pointing out the mistake rather than being able to edit 
it?

You're just being ridiculous to be so... and hell, no one is 
forcing you to edit your mistakes to make it easier for others to 
understand. Not editing is much more harmful because it can cause 
a huge source of confusion on those that reply.  Now, that might 
be your intention, or may you are perfect and do not make 
mistakes, but it's not mine and I am not.
Dec 05 2012
next sibling parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 12/06/2012 04:10 AM, js.mdnq wrote:

 On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 02:59:37 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 12/05/2012 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:

 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

 I've been on plenty of forums where editing is allowed, and I hate it.
 If you're changing what you said, you're participating in a wiki page,
 not a conversation.


 Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes the
 intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post pointing out
 the mistake rather than being able to edit it?

 You're just being ridiculous to be so... and hell, no one is forcing you
 to edit your mistakes to make it easier for others to understand. Not
 editing is much more harmful because it can cause a huge source of
 confusion on those that reply.  Now, that might be your intention, or
 may you are perfect and do not make mistakes, but it's not mine and I am
 not.


Don't feed the troll any longer.
Dec 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 12/05/2012 10:10 PM, js.mdnq wrote:

 Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes
 the intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post
 pointing out the mistake rather than being able to edit it?


Think twice, post once. Most mistakes are innocuous and don't need to be
corrected. If you need a correction, then yes, make a reply. The problem
is the basic principle of a conversation is lost if you make substantial
changes after other people have either read or replied to your post.


 You're just being ridiculous to be so...


No, it's the way I feel, and clearly I'm not the only one here. It also 
mirrors the nature of conversations.


 and hell, no one is forcing you to edit your mistakes to make it
 easier for others to understand.


It's not my editing that I'm worried about. I'm worried about the
integrity of the conversation, as some people just can't resist
treating their post like a wiki essay.
Dec 05 2012
parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, December 06, 2012 00:47:45 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 12/05/2012 10:10 PM, js.mdnq wrote:

 Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes
 the intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post
 pointing out the mistake rather than being able to edit it?


 
 Think twice, post once. Most mistakes are innocuous and don't need to be
 corrected. If you need a correction, then yes, make a reply. The problem
 is the basic principle of a conversation is lost if you make substantial
 changes after other people have either read or replied to your post.
 

 You're just being ridiculous to be so...


 
 No, it's the way I feel, and clearly I'm not the only one here. It also
 mirrors the nature of conversations.


Agreed.


 and hell, no one is forcing you to edit your mistakes to make it
 easier for others to understand.


 
 It's not my editing that I'm worried about. I'm worried about the
 integrity of the conversation, as some people just can't resist
 treating their post like a wiki essay.


Exactly. Upon occasion, I definitely wish that I could edit something that I 
posted (due to a spelling mistake or whatever), but if editing is allowed, it 
becomes to easy to change what's there, making it so that people then look 
like they said something completely different from what they said before and 
potentially destroying the thread of the conversation.

Yes, editing would be nice sometimes, but given the potential for abuse, I 
don't think that it's worth it. And it's definitely _not_ worth using a web 
forum to get it. I like using the mailing list interface, and I intend to 
continue to do so.

- Jonathan M Davis
Dec 05 2012
prev sibling parent "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On 2012-10-06 04:12, js.mdnq <js_adddot+mdng gmail.com> wrote:


 On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 02:59:37 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 12/05/2012 09:08 PM, anonymous wrote:

 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

 I've been on plenty of forums where editing is allowed, and I hate it.  
 If you're changing what you said, you're participating in a wiki page,  
 not a conversation.


 Oh come on... so you're saying that if I make a mistake that changes the  
 intent that I should just leave it alone or make a new post pointing out  
 the mistake rather than being able to edit it?


Abso-fucking-lutely. Deleting and editing posts in a discussion is a plague
upon the internet. If the intent is information rather than discussion
(think wiki page), then editing is a good thing. This forum is *not* a  
wiki.



 You're just being ridiculous to be so... and hell, no one is forcing you  
 to edit your mistakes to make it easier for others to understand. Not  
 editing is much more harmful because it can cause a huge source of  
 confusion on those that reply.  Now, that might be your intention, or  
 may you are perfect and do not make mistakes, but it's not mine and I am  
 not.


Editing is much more harmful because it will cause confusion when someone
replies to something that's no longer there.

Editing is much more harmful because history is not retained, and
information thus is lost.

Editing could be accepted if only appending to the post were allowed, and
if appended edits were clearly marked as such. This keeps the history,
makes it possible to add clarifications, and is easily implementable as a
reply.

-- 
Simen
Dec 06 2012
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/6/2012 1:08 PM, anonymous wrote:

 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.


The boosters of BB software have not addressed many of the complaints I 
had about them.

One mentioned that BB software allowed posting pictures. I kinda like 
that newsgroups don't do pictures - this is a programming forum. 
Pictures are needed in hotrod forums, but they're a waste of bandwidth here.

And I especially like the very, very low bandwidth requirements for 
NNTP. It keeps our server costs low, and for users it means you can 
access the forum on the go without worrying about your cell phone data 
bill, and it works over slow and unreliable connections (such as what 
you get at a conference).

And, of course, low bandwidth requirements means you get faster response 
times.
Dec 05 2012
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig outerproduct.org> writes:
Am 06.12.2012 07:26, schrieb Walter Bright:

 One mentioned that BB software allowed posting pictures. I kinda like that
newsgroups don't do
 pictures - this is a programming forum. Pictures are needed in hotrod forums,
but they're a waste of
 bandwidth here.


... and if you _really_ want to support pictures, doing so on a web front end
is a piece of cake,
even if NNTP is the back end. Nobody stops it from scanning for links,
markdown, BBcode or whatever.
Dec 06 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-12-06 09:28, Sönke Ludwig wrote:


 ... and if you _really_ want to support pictures, doing so on a web front end
is a piece of cake,
 even if NNTP is the back end. Nobody stops it from scanning for links,
markdown, BBcode or whatever.


Syntax highlighted code would actual be quite nice to have in the posts.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Dec 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 01:13:50 UTC, Rob T wrote:

 I'm looking at the URL in my browser, and it's using 
 http://forum.dlang.org.

 Sorry but I don't love it. I can't edit posts, it frequently 
 hangs when refreshing, hangs when posting, and it breaks up 
 threads frequently (like this one), which is rather unpleasant 
 if you're trying to follow a lengthy conversation.


afaik, dfeed never breaks threads. They're broken by other 
clients.
Dec 06 2012
parent reply "Rob T" <rob ucora.com> writes:
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 13:32:31 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 afaik, dfeed never breaks threads. They're broken by other 
 clients.


Either way it's still busted.

--rt
Dec 06 2012
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 18:04:54 UTC, Rob T wrote:

 On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 13:32:31 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 afaik, dfeed never breaks threads. They're broken by other 
 clients.


 Either way it's still busted.

 --rt


nntp doesn't support bans, does it? So it's basically unfixable 
unless you migrate from nntp to something else.
Dec 07 2012
parent reply "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On 2012-27-07 09:12, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 18:04:54 UTC, Rob T wrote:

 On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 13:32:31 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

 afaik, dfeed never breaks threads. They're broken by other clients.


 Either way it's still busted.

 --rt


 nntp doesn't support bans, does it? So it's basically unfixable unless  
 you migrate from nntp to something else.


The protocol itself may not, but seeing as how Walter will delete spam,
it can be assumed to be implementable on the server.

-- 
Simen
Dec 07 2012
parent "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On Friday, 7 December 2012 at 09:16:55 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:

 On 2012-27-07 09:12, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:

 nntp doesn't support bans, does it? So it's basically 
 unfixable unless you migrate from nntp to something else.


 The protocol itself may not, but seeing as how Walter will 
 delete spam,
 it can be assumed to be implementable on the server.


News servers commonly support message cancellation; the problem 
is just that DFeed doesn't fold in the updates (don't know 
whether Vladimir is actually working on this or not).

As far as access control (banning, etc.) goes, NNTP really does 
not have a lot of features. For removing the amount of spam which 
hits this newsgroup, a simple cancelbot might be enough, though.

David
Dec 07 2012
prev sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 02:13:49 +0100
"Rob T" <rob ucora.com> wrote:

 
 My guess is that the people using a newsreader are OK, but a ton 
 of people prefer to use web browsers, I would hazard a guess that 
 most people who use the Internet don't even know what a 
 newsreader is.
 


While that may be true, it's also very true that most people who use
the web don't even know what a *web browser* is. So basically,
"People are stupid" is all that really amounts to.
Dec 06 2012
prev sibling parent "Dejan Lekic" <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 18:24:04 UTC, js.mdnq wrote:

 I have a lot of trouble with the forum. Many times a msg will 
 not post as it sits in a cycle waiting for the nntp server to 
 get the message or for it to be announced.

 IMO there are much better forum software out there that would 
 make it easier to communicate about D than the current method.

 http://www.mybb.com/ is free, pretty good, and relatively easy 
 to setup.

 The ability to edit a post makes life much easier too!


You may think whatever you like. I like forum.dlang.org, nothing 
is wrong with it. In fact, I am replying to your post with it.
Dec 07 2012