Hi, With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums, what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored (and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? I've seen good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players" are the deciding factor (?)
Choice of support forums
Started by ●January 3, 2015
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
Le 03/01/2015 20:04, Don Y a écrit :> Hi, > > With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums, > what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored > (and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? I've seen > good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players" > are the deciding factor (?)A few thoughts: Usenet gives more freedom and with that come advantages and disadvantages. There is a need for self-discipline, for respect of others based on their merits, for the search of the truth by debate and not that of victory by all means. Usenet was born in another time when only a limited number of people could participate. There was selection based on education. All that has changed now, the Internet is everywhere for everybody. We could say that it has moved from the universities to the street. Corporate forums are a response, moderation prevents chaos but your freedom is restricted. You become dependant on an organisation that you don't control, you lose your independance. You lose for instance the right to criticize that organisation.
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:04:25 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:>Hi, > >With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums, >what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored >(and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? I've seen >good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players" >are the deciding factor (?)Corporate forums are specialized. Here, you can ask general questions, like about architectures, circuits, parts, equipment, techniques, history. There are several "web forums" that are directly ripped from SED, with ads. You can post something silly here, and then google it and see where it winds up. Teal elephant sidesaddle. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
Don Y wrote:> Hi, > > With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums, > what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored > (and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? I've seen > good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players" > are the deciding factor (?)The good thing about fora is that there are so many of them. This is also the bad thing about them. I mainly use fora through Google searches; even then, it's hit or miss. Usenet is a vast improvement over everything that tried to replace it. -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
On 1/3/2015 12:27 PM, Lanarcam wrote:> A few thoughts: > > Usenet gives more freedom and with that come advantages > and disadvantages. There is a need for self-discipline, > for respect of others based on their merits, for the > search of the truth by debate and not that of victory > by all means.Yes. So, folks intent on the venue to exchange information are left with a crappier S/N.> Usenet was born in another time when only a limited > number of people could participate. There was selection > based on education. All that has changed now, the Internet > is everywhere for everybody. We could say that it has > moved from the universities to the street. > > Corporate forums are a response, moderation prevents > chaos but your freedom is restricted. You become > dependant on an organisation that you don't control, > you lose your independance. You lose for instance the > right to criticize that organisation.Yes, as well. The moderation tends to get a bit more heavy-handed; BOfH-ish. OTOH, you can get "moderation" without corporate sponsorship. But, the big (potential) win of corporate involvement is the presence of "experts", hopefully (unless the firm assigns the newbies to the task of "support") I see support "venues" (trying to avoid conflicting with "forum") as having several different characteristics that drive their overall utility. In no particular order (some of these rely on others -- but, IMO, merit being addressed explicitly): - Technology How is the venue implemented (mailing lists, web pages, SMS services, etc.)? This has direct impact on many of the other issues (that follow) - Accessibility How readily can the content can be accessed (devices, media, etc.)? And, how well can it be *searched* for applicable content? - Push vs Pull Does the content come to you or do you go to it? Mailing lists being an example of the former; USENET the latter. - Privacy How much privacy does the venue present its participants? Do you have any idea/control as to who is "seeing" your posted content? Can you limit your exposure? - "Richness" of content What sorts of media are supported? E.g., USENET is effectively text only while most "portal forums" support at least limited types of multimedia. - Focus Is there an "effective" charter governing the venue's usage? Or, does the content (topic and quality) wander aimlessly? - Control How is access controlled? Content? Is any form of moderation in force and, if so, how (specific moderators, distributed moderation, etc.)? - Exploitability How susceptible is the venue to abuse (spam, etc.)? How vulnerable are the participants to that (unwanted) abuse? - Cost Is there a cost associated with posting/reading content? To maintaining the service? - "Value" (Bad choice of terms) Are the right people drawn to the venue to address the subject matter covered in the charter? (note that this applies to encouraging the participation of "experts" as well as NOT discouraging the participation of neophytes) I can go on, but I think this gives an indication of how multifaceted the decision is.
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
Don Y wrote:> Hi, > > With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums, > what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored > (and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? I've seen > good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players" > are the deciding factor (?)What obsolescence? Usenet is alive and kicking. Nother ever came close to its efficiency, certainly nothing "modern" from the script kiddies. I am also quite certain that nothing ever will come close. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
Don Y wrote:> On 1/3/2015 12:27 PM, Lanarcam wrote: > >> A few thoughts: >> >> Usenet gives more freedom and with that come advantages >> and disadvantages. There is a need for self-discipline, >> for respect of others based on their merits, for the >> search of the truth by debate and not that of victory >> by all means. > > Yes. So, folks intent on the venue to exchange information > are left with a crappier S/N. > >> Usenet was born in another time when only a limited >> number of people could participate. There was selection >> based on education. All that has changed now, the Internet >> is everywhere for everybody. We could say that it has >> moved from the universities to the street. >> >> Corporate forums are a response, moderation prevents >> chaos but your freedom is restricted. You become >> dependant on an organisation that you don't control, >> you lose your independance. You lose for instance the >> right to criticize that organisation. > > Yes, as well. The moderation tends to get a bit more heavy-handed; > BOfH-ish. > > OTOH, you can get "moderation" without corporate sponsorship. > But, the big (potential) win of corporate involvement is the > presence of "experts", hopefully (unless the firm assigns the > newbies to the task of "support") > > I see support "venues" (trying to avoid conflicting with "forum") > as having several different characteristics that drive their > overall utility. In no particular order (some of these rely > on others -- but, IMO, merit being addressed explicitly): > > - Technology > How is the venue implemented (mailing lists, web pages, SMS services, > etc.)? > This has direct impact on many of the other issues (that follow)NNTP is vastly superior to the rest for this.> - Accessibility > How readily can the content can be accessed (devices, media, etc.)? > And, how well can it be *searched* for applicable content?So use NNTP over port 80.> - Push vs Pull > Does the content come to you or do you go to it? Mailing lists being an > example of the former; USENET the latter.Pull is good.> - Privacy > How much privacy does the venue present its participants? Do you have > any idea/control as to who is "seeing" your posted content? Can you > limit your exposure?Ha! Privacy is an absolute illusion.> - "Richness" of content > What sorts of media are supported? E.g., USENET is effectively text > only > while most "portal forums" support at least limited types of multimedia.Very bad. Text is good. Multimedia is a threat vector medium at the very least. NNTP coupled with webpages should be enough.> - Focus > Is there an "effective" charter governing the venue's usage? Or, does > the content (topic and quality) wander aimlessly?Doesn't matter. Focus is also overrated.> - Control > How is access controlled? Content? Is any form of moderation in force > and, if so, how (specific moderators, distributed moderation, etc.)?There should be total anarchy. Control is an illusion ( unless all the poles are on the unit circle ).> - Exploitability > How susceptible is the venue to abuse (spam, etc.)? How vulnerable > are the > participants to that (unwanted) abuse?Who cares? Become adept at filtering.> - Cost > Is there a cost associated with posting/reading content? To maintaining > the service?Pay for your NNTP link, then stop worrying. I feel for people trying to monetize fora, but not too much.> - "Value" > (Bad choice of terms) Are the right people drawn to the venue to > address > the subject matter covered in the charter? (note that this applies to > encouraging the participation of "experts" as well as NOT > discouraging the > participation of neophytes) >The best thing a neophyte can do is learn to ask good questions.> I can go on, but I think this gives an indication of how multifaceted the > decision is.Gated communities are no way to live. -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:04:25 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:>With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums,Wrong. The distinction is that Usenet is essentially a text based system, which really means that content is what's important. What you get with the web based forums is advertising, advertising, and more advertising. You also get avatars, navigation aids, user identification, prematurely terminated threads, and the ability to imbed images. Oh yeah, you get plenty of useless one-line replies.>what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored >(and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches?Corporate sponsored means that it deals primarily with the company's products. If you have an interesting topic, but not necessarily related to the company's product line, you may find yourself admonished or censored. Independent really means advertising funded instead of corporate funded. I have no clue which type has fewer distractions, less junk on the page, and less advertising. Corporate forums also tend to be devoid of comments that are critical to the company, its products, and its management. If you want a realistic comparison of devices that include competitors products, you will rarely find them on a corporate support forum. Oddly, you may also find a lack of decent answers. I do quite a bit of Googling, looking for answers to specific issues and problems. I often find the same question on a corporate forum, where the only answer is "Sorry that you're having this problem. Please call your support team at XXX-XXX-XXXX for assistance". If you like useless answers, you won't have any problem finding them in corporate forums. Corporate forums also like to "expire" old history and evidence of common problems. At one point, Linksys was removing anything that was more than about 2 weeks old. It was impossible to determine if a problem had been known and reported, or if it was something unique. While this is a rather extreme example, the retention of old postings on corporate forums is nothing when compared to Google Groups and various Usenet news services. Don't forget about mailing lists many of which have the beneficial characteristics of Usenet, without the ugly mess on forums. For example, for time and GPS related issues, there's the Time Nuts mailing list: <https://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/> Looks like over 700 to 1000 messages per month. By comparison, sci.electronics.design gets about 100-200 per day.>I've seen >good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players" >are the deciding factor (?)Yeah, something like that. It's really the players of the moment. I read and post to about 8 Usenet forums literally since the beginning of Usenet. I've run mailing lists, moderated local newsgroups, and run Bnews, Cnews, and INN news servers since about 1985(?). It's not the players so much as the polluters found in many newsgroups. I've noticed a significant drop of knowledgeable contributors immediately after the arrival of those who are not looking for help, but instead are looking for entertainment value, ego inflation, or targets for their personality problems. Only those with substantial dedication, a willingness to help, and a cast iron stomach stick around. Usenet groups that were previously thriving with intelligent questions and comments, are now dead thanks to a few individuals. So, what problem are you trying to solve? Is there something wrong with Usenet (other than the rumor of its demise) that would inspire you seek an alternative? -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
Hi Jeff, On 1/3/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:04:25 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: > >> With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums, > > Wrong. The distinction is that Usenet is essentially a text based > system, which really means that content is what's important. What you > get with the web based forums is advertising, advertising, and moreThat isn't a direct consequence of the format. Just because it's better suited to animated dancing popsicles, doesn't mean it has to be *used* for that! I've seen "independent" portals that were devoid of advertising (despite the pressures on "owners" of such sites to give in to "rent us your viewers' eyes"). And, mailing lists with ads tacked onto every message! :-/> advertising. You also get avatars, navigation aids, user > identification, prematurely terminated threads, and the ability to > imbed images. Oh yeah, you get plenty of useless one-line replies.Again, what you *choose* to present as the UX is up to the designer of the interface. If you want to clutter it up with eye-candy... <shrug>. What I find most crippling in web forums is the lack of a threaded interface as the *norm* -- instead, it's just a flattened accretion of all posts in a form that's easy for the software to implement (time-ordered) instead of thinking about the viewer.>> what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored >> (and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? > > Corporate sponsored means that it deals primarily with the company'sThat's exactly the point! It's a SUPPORT venue, not a "chat room". However, dealing with a particular product(s) doesn't require corporate sponsorship. Nor, corporate *control*.> products. If you have an interesting topic, but not necessarily > related to the company's product line, you may find yourself > admonished or censored. Independent really means advertising funded > instead of corporate funded. I have no clue which type has fewer > distractions, less junk on the page, and less advertising.Why can't a venue be corporate *funded* (to eliminate the need for adverts) yet "controlled" independently?> Corporate forums also tend to be devoid of comments that are critical > to the company, its products, and its management. If you want a > realistic comparison of devices that include competitors products, you > will rarely find them on a corporate support forum.Exactly. But, that doesn't also have to be a *consequence* of their sponsorship/involvement. I *think* (IANAL) that a corporate sponsored venue probably has to take some steps to prevent its use in illegal activities (e.g., allowing participants to post copyrighted materials, etc.). But, that doesn't also have to include prohibiting criticism of the "sponsor" or the sponsor's products -- you can't prevent folks from making those criticisms in *other* places so why bother, "here"? At least you can attempt to address them and, possibly, make the complainant look unreasonable, etc. (e.g., "Yes, you *did* submit your device for warranty repair. But, it was 3 months PAST the warranty date -- here's a copy of the paperwork that you submitted with it, note the date. At that time, we indicated that we had determined the reason for the failure was because the device had been hit with a baseball bat and informed you that the cost of the repair would be $X. Additionally, we offerred to sell you a reconditioned unit at a reduced price, as indicated in this correspondence (attached)...") Any participants acting as representatives for the corporation would obviously be constrained in what they could do/say ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION. And, "membership" can be conditioned based on *ownership* of the product(s) in question. Want a say? Buy the item! The liberties that a corporation (as sponsor) is willing to permit speak to its commitment to its customers.> Oddly, you may also find a lack of decent answers. I do quite a bit > of Googling, looking for answers to specific issues and problems. I > often find the same question on a corporate forum, where the only > answer is "Sorry that you're having this problem. Please call your > support team at XXX-XXX-XXXX for assistance". If you like useless > answers, you won't have any problem finding them in corporate forums.Yeah, and useless answers are SOLELY within that domain, eh? ;)> Corporate forums also like to "expire" old history and evidence of > common problems. At one point, Linksys was removing anything that was > more than about 2 weeks old. It was impossible to determine if a > problem had been known and reported, or if it was something unique. > While this is a rather extreme example, the retention of old postings > on corporate forums is nothing when compared to Google Groups and > various Usenet news services.Again, that's just policy and how comfortable sponsors are about hearing bad things. Given that most such venues are visited by FOLKS HAVING PROBLEMS, anyone reading them that is NOT at least subconciously aware of this does themselves a disservice ("Gee, EVERY vendors' products suck!!")> Don't forget about mailing lists many of which have the beneficial > characteristics of Usenet, without the ugly mess on forums. For > example, for time and GPS related issues, there's the Time Nuts > mailing list: > <https://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/> > Looks like over 700 to 1000 messages per month. By comparison, > sci.electronics.design gets about 100-200 per day.Yes, I've already implemented some mailing list software. Personally, I prefer pushing content to the user (assuming there is no associated *cost*) to ensure it's *there* when he/she opts to view it. But, this can tax most mail readers unprepared for big messages, high volumes, etc. It also requires a bit more discipline among the participants (e.g., folks who know how to quote properly -- and don't just report all of the original post FOLLOWED by a few comments). And, "push" approaches tend to lend themselves to simpler content filtering solutions (e.g., you can't "spam filter" USENET unless you download every post)>> I've seen >> good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players" >> are the deciding factor (?) > > Yeah, something like that. It's really the players of the moment. I > read and post to about 8 Usenet forums literally since the beginning > of Usenet. I've run mailing lists, moderated local newsgroups, and > run Bnews, Cnews, and INN news servers since about 1985(?). > > It's not the players so much as the polluters found in many > newsgroups. I've noticed a significant drop of knowledgeable > contributors immediately after the arrival of those who are not > looking for help, but instead are looking for entertainment value, ego > inflation, or targets for their personality problems. Only those with > substantial dedication, a willingness to help, and a cast iron stomach > stick around. Usenet groups that were previously thriving with > intelligent questions and comments, are now dead thanks to a few > individuals.I've seen the same thing happen in web forums -- newbies hijacking threads, responding to threads that died off years earlier, etc. "Oh, is this where everyone is actively talking? Great, let me inject MY question, here!!!" The issue with USENET is that (unless moderated), groups can quickly degrade/lose value. And, the cost of moderating can be high (time wise). This was the issue I tried to address with my mailing list implementation: encourage moderation by "anyone who wants to do so" -- yet prevent overzealous moderation (i.e., be able to moderate the moderators). AFAICT, this is only possible with a closed membership list (piss enough people off, and you lose access!)> So, what problem are you trying to solve? Is there something wrong > with Usenet (other than the rumor of its demise) that would inspire > you seek an alternative?I notice there are very few "alt.liebermann.products" USENET groups! :>
Reply by ●January 3, 20152015-01-03
John Larkin wrote:> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:04:25 -0700, Don Y<this@is.not.me.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> With the obsolescence of USENET in favor of more "portal-based" forums, >> what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of corporate-sponsored >> (and hosted?) forums vs. more "independent" approaches? I've seen >> good (and bad) examples of each and can only conclude that the "players" >> are the deciding factor (?) > > Corporate forums are specialized. Here, you can ask general questions, > like about architectures, circuits, parts, equipment, techniques, > history. > > There are several "web forums" that are directly ripped from SED, with > ads. You can post something silly here, and then google it and see > where it winds up. Teal elephant sidesaddle.Wound up in Indian gold-trading backroom--^
