Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between
the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the very few Mustang-related Usenet groups. I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but .... Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison to the forums. How come? -- Frank ess -- Frank ess |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:43:36 -0700, "Frank S" >
wrote: >I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between >the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the >very few Mustang-related Usenet groups. > >I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the >general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but >... > >Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse >here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison >to the forums. > >How come? > >-- >Frank ess - Usenet is uncontrolled so it attracts lots of spam and crazy people. - It cost ISPs money to support Usenet so most of them stopped supporting it and running servers for it. - Usenet was a known commodity to the "older" generation who started out on CompuServe and text based networking and they were comfortable using it. An awful lot of the "newer" generation never became aware of it or found using it too complicated so the user base has dwindled way off. I much prefer Usenet for "discussion" since you can have hundreds of discussions all in one organized framework. I generally don't like the "Forums" because it fragments everything including things that really should all be discussed together... Like Mustangs. Now to discuss "mustangs" you have to join several forums, email lists, groups, etc and you wind up either missing a lot of interesting stuff or reading teh same stuff posted redundantly. You can't fight "progress" and it seems Usenet is doomed to eventually die out due to lack of support and participation. Certainly the objections to all the spam and cross posting are valid ones, problems that can be controlled in "Forums" - that is one good thing about "forums". - One thing you rarely find on Usenet anymore is civility however. The anonymity makes to too easy to start flame wars. |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
"Frank S" > wrote in message ... > I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between > the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the > very few Mustang-related Usenet groups. why? dont have a job ? lots of other mustang forums besides uslessnet > > I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the > general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but > ... your judgement of content is meaningless, we will not feed your narssistic personality since you are not talking about mustangs, you are a spammer, and contaminate and degrade the uselessnet. > > Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse > here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison > to the forums. yes you do not have experience. Talk about your blown 24# 1993 instead, gumby. > > How come? I dont know why you have no experience, dude. Ask you mommie. > > -- > Frank ess > > > -- > Frank ess -- thats f*cking gay, frankliey boy. |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
On 2013-04-10, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> - Usenet is uncontrolled so it attracts lots of spam and crazy people. > - It cost ISPs money to support Usenet so most of them stopped > supporting it and running servers for it. > - Usenet was a known commodity to the "older" generation who started > out on CompuServe and text based networking and they were comfortable > using it. An awful lot of the "newer" generation never became aware > of it or found using it too complicated so the user base has dwindled > way off. > > I much prefer Usenet for "discussion" since you can have hundreds of > discussions all in one organized framework. > I generally don't like the "Forums" because it fragments everything > including things that really should all be discussed together... Like > Mustangs. Now to discuss "mustangs" you have to join several forums, > email lists, groups, etc and you wind up either missing a lot of > interesting stuff or reading teh same stuff posted redundantly. I really dislike web forum software. All that anyone had to do was mimic one of the many decent newsreaders out there and they didn't. Same with the google groups interface for usenet. Pure crap. There's no reason web forums can't work, they are just use crappy interfaces and they aren't getting better. comment systems, blogs, etc and so forth are just getting worse and worse not better. Slower, more clicks, more annoyances, more broken pieces and bugs. I can fly through usenet. everything is well ordered with a decent newsreader. I still read it via a terminal emulator from my own unix box. Web forums are slow and clunky. The better ones have canned 'new' post searches that bring up the active threads. That's about as good as it gets. > You can't fight "progress" and it seems Usenet is doomed to eventually > die out due to lack of support and participation. Certainly the > objections to all the spam and cross posting are valid ones, problems > that can be controlled in "Forums" - that is one good thing about > "forums". > - One thing you rarely find on Usenet anymore is civility however. The > anonymity makes to too easy to start flame wars. I find a great deal of less that civil behavior in forums and even on social media sites. Some of it gets canned, threads get shut down, but it still happens. Usenet is essentially dead. I found an autos/driving blog to my liking and I post there now more than I do to usenet. It's much nicer and the wordpress software is ok so long as thread branches don't get too deep and I can read it like an admin would, which this one allows. No admin powers, but I can read threads through the admin interface, but by most recent rather than subject. It's klunky but livable since I read almost all the threads anyway. If I didn't read nearly all the threads it wouldn't work so well. |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
On 4/9/2013 19:43, Frank S wrote:
> I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between > the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the > very few Mustang-related Usenet groups. > > I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the > general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but > ... > > Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse > here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison > to the forums. > > How come? > You must be new here? LOL The kind of flaming that used to happen here would never be tolerated on a moderated forum. |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
On 4/9/2013 20:44, AMiews wrote:
> "Frank S" > wrote in message > ... >> I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between >> the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the >> very few Mustang-related Usenet groups. > > why? dont have a job ? lots of other mustang forums besides uslessnet Oh look, another 15yo found Usenet.... |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:15:38 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote: >On 2013-04-10, Ashton Crusher > wrote: > >> - Usenet is uncontrolled so it attracts lots of spam and crazy people. >> - It cost ISPs money to support Usenet so most of them stopped >> supporting it and running servers for it. >> - Usenet was a known commodity to the "older" generation who started >> out on CompuServe and text based networking and they were comfortable >> using it. An awful lot of the "newer" generation never became aware >> of it or found using it too complicated so the user base has dwindled >> way off. >> >> I much prefer Usenet for "discussion" since you can have hundreds of >> discussions all in one organized framework. > >> I generally don't like the "Forums" because it fragments everything >> including things that really should all be discussed together... Like >> Mustangs. Now to discuss "mustangs" you have to join several forums, >> email lists, groups, etc and you wind up either missing a lot of >> interesting stuff or reading teh same stuff posted redundantly. > >I really dislike web forum software. All that anyone had to do was mimic >one of the many decent newsreaders out there and they didn't. Same with >the google groups interface for usenet. Pure crap. There's no reason web >forums can't work, they are just use crappy interfaces and they aren't >getting better. comment systems, blogs, etc and so forth are just >getting worse and worse not better. Slower, more clicks, more >annoyances, more broken pieces and bugs. > >I can fly through usenet. everything is well ordered with a decent >newsreader. I still read it via a terminal emulator from >my own unix box. Web forums are slow and clunky. The better ones have >canned 'new' post searches that bring up the active threads. That's >about as good as it gets. > >> You can't fight "progress" and it seems Usenet is doomed to eventually >> die out due to lack of support and participation. Certainly the >> objections to all the spam and cross posting are valid ones, problems >> that can be controlled in "Forums" - that is one good thing about >> "forums". > >> - One thing you rarely find on Usenet anymore is civility however. The >> anonymity makes to too easy to start flame wars. > >I find a great deal of less that civil behavior in forums and even on >social media sites. Some of it gets canned, threads get shut down, but >it still happens. > >Usenet is essentially dead. I found an autos/driving blog to my liking >and I post there now more than I do to usenet. It's much nicer and the >wordpress software is ok so long as thread branches don't get too deep >and I can read it like an admin would, which this one allows. No admin >powers, but I can read threads through the admin interface, but by most >recent rather than subject. It's klunky but livable since I read almost >all the threads anyway. If I didn't read nearly all the threads it >wouldn't work so well. > > One of the biggest problems on Forums, besides the fact that the mere proliferation of them has horribly segmented the potential user base, is trying to read new, threaded messages. You need to constantly start over, going up and down the tree to get to what's new and many times it's hard to tell what's new till you "get there". Decent Usenet Readers have made all this stuff like a warm knife thru butter but sadly the tide is against them. |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 20:44:03 -0500, "AMiews" >
wrote: > >"Frank S" > wrote in message m... >> I'm soliciting theories that would account for the differences between >> the amount of communication on the dozens of Internet forums and the >> very few Mustang-related Usenet groups. > >why? dont have a job ? lots of other mustang forums besides uslessnet > >> >> I have seen those forums, and I'm not really very impressed with the >> general caliber of correspondents. There are some worthwhile sites, but >> ... > >your judgement of content is meaningless, >we will not feed your narssistic personality >since you are not talking about mustangs, you are a spammer, and >contaminate and degrade the uselessnet. > > >> >> Without wide experience on Usenet, I have the impression the discourse >> here is more likely to be civil, considered, and serious in comparison >> to the forums. > >yes you do not have experience. Talk about your blown 24# 1993 instead, >gumby. > > > >> >> How come? > >I dont know why you have no experience, dude. Ask you mommie. > >> >> -- >> Frank ess >> >> >> -- >> Frank ess > >-- thats f*cking gay, frankliey boy. > Thanks for posting a real life example, you, of the kind of assholes who have ruined Usenet. It's too bad you trolls can't get a life and leave your blow up dolls with the lifelike female/male parts in the closet. |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
On 4/10/2013 17:16, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> One of the biggest problems on Forums, besides the fact that the mere > proliferation of them has horribly segmented the potential user base, > is trying to read new, threaded messages. You need to constantly > start over, going up and down the tree to get to what's new and many > times it's hard to tell what's new till you "get there". Decent > Usenet Readers have made all this stuff like a warm knife thru butter > but sadly the tide is against them. > It's easier if you know how to manipulate the software, but I'm a moderator and administrator so I have more experience than a lot of people. |
Why so little traffic on a Mustang Usenet group?
On 4/10/2013 17:18, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> Frank ess >> >> -- thats f*cking gay, frankliey boy. >> > > > Thanks for posting a real life example, you, of the kind of assholes > who have ruined Usenet. It's too bad you trolls can't get a life and > leave your blow up dolls with the lifelike female/male parts in the > closet. > Maybe he used to be herc ast or troy the troll and thinks hes funny? I fondly remember Michael Dykes and Steve Everest in "Flaming to music" ROFL! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com