Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:31:52 -0300
Message-ID: <4639f22a$0$4038$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
>
> Why not think a little more radically? What I'd like is to peruse the
> existing posts in "hypertext form". That is, instead of linking one post
> to another post, (the "response relationship") the way Google groups or MS
> Outlook does, why not have a hyperlink in the specific word or phrase that
> elicited a response? Then, people interested in that particular
> continuation of the thread could click on the link, while the rest of us
> continued reading in sequence?
>
> I see several problems with this. One is whether you want the responder to
> be able to indicate what word or phrase should lead to the response. The
> second is that hyperlinks are forward links, while the existing response
> relationship is implemented by back links. Back links are a whole lot
> easier to manage in a distributed fashion, because you can add a back link
> without modifying the original.
>
> Another problem is that I can't see how to implement the "what's new"
> feature.... one that I depend on just about every time I visit a newsgroup.
>
> None of these problems is a showstopper, however.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:31:52 -0300
Message-ID: <4639f22a$0$4038$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
David Cressey wrote:
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
> news:EYk_h.157503$aG1.18337_at_pd7urf3no...
>
>>Frank Hamersley wrote: >> >>>David Cressey wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Bob mentioned that the signal to noise ratio in this newsgroup is >>>>improving. >>>>I share that perception. >>> >>> >>>This true IMO ... however I am getting slightly cheesed off by long >>>multi threaded posts - not that I was previously blameless. >>> >>>Whilst I am a confirmed "bottom poster" I hanker for 1 quote + 1 >>>response in 30 or so lines max. >>> >>>Yeah yeah - its very 21st century (gnats attention span) even though I >>>am notionally a boomer but I like the fast aquisition by leaning on the >>>downarrow rather than having to page down to find the meat 'n potatoes. >>> >>>Cheers, Frank. >> >>I suspect gnats are more observant than humans - they need to be in >>order to survive. >> >>I'd like to highlight an OP sentence, then press a key for my reply and >>have other keys to "unstack" fragments of a thread and never scroll at >>all. I don't think html quite grasped that possibility. >>
>
>
> Why not think a little more radically? What I'd like is to peruse the
> existing posts in "hypertext form". That is, instead of linking one post
> to another post, (the "response relationship") the way Google groups or MS
> Outlook does, why not have a hyperlink in the specific word or phrase that
> elicited a response? Then, people interested in that particular
> continuation of the thread could click on the link, while the rest of us
> continued reading in sequence?
>
> I see several problems with this. One is whether you want the responder to
> be able to indicate what word or phrase should lead to the response. The
> second is that hyperlinks are forward links, while the existing response
> relationship is implemented by back links. Back links are a whole lot
> easier to manage in a distributed fashion, because you can add a back link
> without modifying the original.
>
> Another problem is that I can't see how to implement the "what's new"
> feature.... one that I depend on just about every time I visit a newsgroup.
>
> None of these problems is a showstopper, however.
Back-linking leads to big headaches with spam. Received on Thu May 03 2007 - 16:31:52 CEST