| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, jsproat@geocities.com (Sproaticus) writes:
> > 2. Should discussion be allowed or prevented in these groups?
> > That is, should follow-ups to postings be directed to a
> > different group, namely either lugnet.cad or lugnet.cad.dev?
> > (See http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dev:1343
> > for reasons in support of allowing discussion in the groups.)
>
> No, separate the discussions from these groups. It's extremely
> frustrating to find source when it's scattered amongst ten times more
> messages discussing it, discussing realted threads, discussing off-topic
> threads, flaming, etc.
How strongly do you really feel about that? It seems to me that all one
has to do to find the source is to climb to the top of the thread tree,
which can be done by looking for the absence of "Re:" in the Subject line,
or by clicking the collapse-thread button in one's newsreader, or by
clicking to the top node if reading via the web interface.
> If the followup-to were enforced, it'd be easier
> to find the discussions related to the models, even if they were in a
> separate ng.
The followup-to could be enforced (at least, a default could be enforced),
but I still get a really uneasy feeling about separating the data from the
discussions.
I just had a rather nasty experience going through the four most recent
postings to .cad.dat. Here are the usability problems that I encountered --
and keep in mind that these are only likely to get worse (not better) with
more groups (if discussions are separated from the data):
1. In my newsreader I noticed that there were 4 new posts to .cad.dat...
I happened to read the text of Duane Hess's Riot Control Vehicle posting
first, because the subject line sounded the most interesting of the
four. But my immediate first thought was, "Before I go view this, what
have other people said about this?" (I like to read other people's
comments first before viewing a model, otherwise I often end up having
to view it twice because someone else saw something cool in it that I'd
overlooked.) But then I realized, "Hey, wait, this is .cad.dat -- and
there aren't any discussions here -- so if I want to see what other
people have written first, I have to exit this group, go into .cad, read
that stuff, and then come back here." So I figured, "forget that...too
much work. I'll just go to that darn web interface and go through stuff
from there." So I got there, and viewed the model (which I liked) and
then I still wondered what other people had said about it. Well, at
least if I scroll down to the bottom of the page there, I can see if
other people have posted any followups. Nope, no followups yet. Oh
well.
2. Next I clicked up Duane's Debris Removal Truck --
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dat:265
No problems there -- and I posted a short followup -- but then I clicked
on Duane's Barr.dat post --
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dat:266
which, oddly, wasn't posted as a follow-up to #265 as it probably
should have been. Why wasn't it? I'm not sure, but I'll bet it has
something to do with the fact that the followups on #265 are set to
.cad (rather than defaulting to .cad.dat), thereby decreasing the
probability of someone posting a followup into the .cad.dat group.
So now #266 and #265 are separate threads. :-( I doubt they'd've
been on separate threads with an integrated data/discussion group.
3. Next I clicked up Imre Papp's Minifig Tool Pickaxe --
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dat:263
I viewed it in LDLITE and noticed something odd (a missing vertical
patch), so my first thought was, "OK, I'd better point this out."
But then I thought, "Wait, first I'd better check to see if someone
else has already pointed it out." Not having seen the answer
immediately on the screen, and having remembered the frustration of
checking out the Riot Control Vehicle via NNTP first, I quickly
forgot that I could just scroll down to the bottom of this page and
see if someone has pointed it out yet. I was halfway on my way to
going over to .cad.dev (and I had to -think- which group to look in;
bad) before I realized, "Duh, wait, the answer *was* there, it just
wasn't not there."
Another real bummer with the way things currently are is posts like this
(not pointing any fingers! -- just giving examples):
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dev:452
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:66
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:1170
These messages are of course all variations on the theme of "Hey I just
posted a foofoo to lugnet.cad.dat -- check it out and let me know what you
think." Now, nobody's done anything wrong by posting these, but -- Ugh --
how unfortunate it is that this sort of thing becomes necessary when
discussions are separated from data. :-/ And with more groups, it'll only
get worse.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) Pretty strong. I have given up for now looking for real content on news://news.povray.o...cene-files because 95%+ of the messages are nothing but discussion, requests, and flames (not the POVRay kind, unfortunately). (...) Nope. Murphey's Law (...) (25 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| This is an interesting discussion. I think it points out both the many different technologies and interfaces people are using to access the newsgroups, and the different viewing habits we have developed based on the interfaces we use and our (...) (25 years ago, 29-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) I'm inclined to say so, esp. since so much has been posted to this sub-tree already. (...) No, separate the discussions from these groups. It's extremely frustrating to find source when it's scattered amongst ten times more messages discussing (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
