| Science Forum Index » Engineering - Lighting Forum » Fading Usenet Newsgroups - the next step... |
|
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting... |
 Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Crowley wrote:
[quote:98c6f07d47]Linked-In appears to be instantly useless. Searching for a discussion
group with the keyword "lighting" returns 238 different groups. TWO
HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT!!!
(Snip)[/quote:98c6f07d47]
[quote:98c6f07d47]But then, you can't just browse the group to see what the people and
postings are like, you must *join* the group first, which means "applying"
for membership and then *waiting* for the owner to "approve" your
"membership". Who knows how long that will take (or whether I will
still remember them by the time they get back to me 
[/quote:98c6f07d47]
*** Oo, I had forgotten about that negative aspect.
[quote:98c6f07d47]Since they apparently allow anyone to create a group, no telling which
ones or how many are thinly-disguised methods creating marketing
(read: "spam") mail lists for their various online marketing schemes.
[/quote:98c6f07d47]
*** Spam lists aside, as you say, any website owner can create a forum,
which only fragments the audience even further. )-:
[quote:98c6f07d47]All in all, makes Usenet look brillant by comparison.
[/quote:98c6f07d47]
*** Perhaps when the dust settles, web forums wil have improved, but I
am not holding my greath.
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Crowley wrote:
[quote:97ca52fb21]It was only "Google Groups" that opened Usenet up to the great
unwashed masses of trolls and spammers.
[/quote:97ca52fb21]
*** No, there were plenty of those before Google, Richard. )-:
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Crowley wrote:
(Re: http://www.google.se/search?q=quotefix)
[quote:876e583f94]Frankly, Quotefix is turning out to be more trouble than it's worth.
My installation didn't include the apparently required graphics icons
for the emoticons, so I just get the red-x "missing graphic" icon to
replace any emoticon in the message. Wasn't clear from the web-
site where to get these images or where to install them.
(Snip)[/quote:876e583f94]
*** I may be misunderstanding here, but what good are graphics on text
newsgroups? - unless they are ASCII art. (-:
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Victor Roberts wrote:
[quote:a1c58015ae]...I now believe that
Google Groups may be the best choice for new and casual
participants in sci.engr.lighting. I know that the user
interface for Google Groups is terrible, but to use any
newsreader, even one people may already have installed on
their computers, such as Outlook Express or Thunderbird,
requires people to figure out the address of their ISP's
NewsServer, and then configure the newsreader, assuming even
that they know that Outlook Express and Thunderbird have
newsreader capabilities. This is enough to kill the
interest of 95% of computer users.
--
Vic Roberts
[/quote:a1c58015ae]
*** Then how do they even know anything about computers? All tasks
require some figuring out.
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Victor Roberts wrote:
[quote:c6bfb282a0]Does AOL even have a news server?
--
Vic Roberts
[/quote:c6bfb282a0]
*** Does AOL even care about their customers?
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Crowley... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting" wrote ...
[quote:beecd9bce0]Richard Crowley wrote:
(Re: http://www.google.se/search?q=quotefix)
Frankly, Quotefix is turning out to be more trouble than it's worth.
My installation didn't include the apparently required graphics icons
for the emoticons, so I just get the red-x "missing graphic" icon to
replace any emoticon in the message. Wasn't clear from the web-
site where to get these images or where to install them.
(Snip)
*** I may be misunderstanding here, but what good are graphics on text
newsgroups? - unless they are ASCII art. (-:
[/quote:beecd9bce0]
Quotefix apparently takes emoticon sequences like and 
and replace them with an inline graphic, presumably some kind
of smiley-face, etc. But it doesn't install those graphics files, so
you just see the standard box with a red X indicating a missing
file. It also renders *italic* and _underscore_.
Bah. Too fancy for my taste. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Crowley... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting" wrote
[quote:3626945023]*** Perhaps when the dust settles, web forums wil have improved, but I
am not holding my greath.
[/quote:3626945023]
Don't hold your breath, either. So far, one or two of the group owners
has approved my membership, and when I finally got a peek inside,
there was nothing to see. A combination of horribly inefficient web-
based interface along with practically zero content renders LinkedIn
groups a complete non-starter from what I can see. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Thomas Paterson... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 30, 8:24 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow... at (no spam) xp7rt.net> wrote:
[quote:dabe5b42ac]"Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting" wrote
*** Perhaps when the dust settles, web forums wil have improved, but I
am not holding my greath.
Don't hold your breath, either. So far, one or two of the group owners
has approved my membership, and when I finally got a peek inside,
there was nothing to see. A combination of horribly inefficient web-
based interface along with practically zero content renders LinkedIn
groups a complete non-starter from what I can see.
[/quote:dabe5b42ac]
I would have thought that this simply indicated that the groups you
looked at were two that will fall by the wayside - there are good
discussions going on in several.
T. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Crowley... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Thomas Paterson" wrote...
[quote:84567f2fb6]"Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting" wrote
*** Perhaps when the dust settles, web forums wil have improved, but I
am not holding my greath.
Don't hold your breath, either. So far, one or two of the group owners
has approved my membership, and when I finally got a peek inside,
there was nothing to see. A combination of horribly inefficient web-
based interface along with practically zero content renders LinkedIn
groups a complete non-starter from what I can see.
I would have thought that this simply indicated that the groups you
looked at were two that will fall by the wayside - there are good
discussions going on in several.
[/quote:84567f2fb6]
How do we expect any significant number of people to find the time
and develop the patience to DISCOVER them? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Thomas Paterson... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 1, 6:15 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow... at (no spam) xp7rt.net> wrote:
[quote:2a824c5c57]"Thomas Paterson" wrote...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting" wrote
*** Perhaps when the dust settles, web forums wil have improved, but I
am not holding my greath.
Don't hold your breath, either. So far, one or two of the group owners
has approved my membership, and when I finally got a peek inside,
there was nothing to see. A combination of horribly inefficient web-
based interface along with practically zero content renders LinkedIn
groups a complete non-starter from what I can see.
I would have thought that this simply indicated that the groups you
looked at were two that will fall by the wayside - there are good
discussions going on in several.
How do we expect any significant number of people to find the time
and develop the patience to DISCOVER them?
[/quote:2a824c5c57]
One way would be to open a discussion on the older formats drawing
attention to the possibilities... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Crowley... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Thomas Paterson" wrote ...
[quote:32913b4901]"Richard Crowley" wrote:
How do we expect any significant number of people to find the time
and develop the patience to DISCOVER them?
One way would be to open a discussion on the older formats drawing
attention to the possibilities...
[/quote:32913b4901]
I'm eagerly waiting specific recommendations. My findings so
far (using the shotgun in the dark methodology) has turned up
exactly nothing.
Rather ironic, isn't it? That we have to use the "older formats" to
help people find the new ones. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Crowley wrote:
[quote:ecd4b78e24]"Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
(Re: http://www.google.se/search?q=quotefix)
Frankly, Quotefix is turning out to be more trouble than it's worth.
My installation didn't include the apparently required graphics icons
for the emoticons, so I just get the red-x "missing graphic" icon to
replace any emoticon in the message. Wasn't clear from the web-
site where to get these images or where to install them.
(Snip)
*** I may be misunderstanding here, but what good are graphics on text
newsgroups? - unless they are ASCII art. (-:
Quotefix apparently takes emoticon sequences like and
and replace them with an inline graphic, presumably some kind
of smiley-face, etc. But it doesn't install those graphics files, so
you just see the standard box with a red X indicating a missing
file.
[/quote:ecd4b78e24]
*** Sounds rather useless, to me.
[quote:ecd4b78e24]It also renders *italic* and _underscore_.
Bah. Too fancy for my taste.
[/quote:ecd4b78e24]
*** I am not an eye-candy fan, either, Richard.
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Thomas Paterson... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 2, 6:18 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow... at (no spam) xp7rt.net> wrote:
[quote:5210821bb8]"Thomas Paterson" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
How do we expect any significant number of people to find the time
and develop the patience to DISCOVER them?
One way would be to open a discussion on the older formats drawing
attention to the possibilities...
I'm eagerly waiting specific recommendations. My findings so
far (using the shotgun in the dark methodology) has turned up
exactly nothing.
Rather ironic, isn't it? That we have to use the "older formats" to
help people find the new ones.
[/quote:5210821bb8]
Richard,
Try the IALD group, if each of us posts on their something worth
discussing, each week for a few weeks, we'll bring it to life - it has
a big membership, but they're passive at this stage. I'm sure we can
activate a bunch of them. See you there? Terry's signed up, we just
need to start a few debates.
T. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Crowley... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thomas Paterson wrote:
[quote:e69cf47665]Try the IALD group, if each of us posts on their something worth
discussing, each week for a few weeks, we'll bring it to life - it has
a big membership, but they're passive at this stage. I'm sure we can
activate a bunch of them. See you there? Terry's signed up, we just
need to start a few debates.
[/quote:e69cf47665]
"Because this group is exclusive to IALD and LIRC members, it will
take 2-3 business days to approve your request. "
Since I don't even know what IALD or LIRC are, seems unlikely
that I will be participating. Ideal way to limit traffic and participation.
Good luck with that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Thomas Paterson... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 8, 1:16 am, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow... at (no spam) xp7rt.net> wrote:
[quote:738c27a941]Thomas Paterson wrote:
Try the IALD group, if each of us posts on their something worth
discussing, each week for a few weeks, we'll bring it to life - it has
a big membership, but they're passive at this stage. I'm sure we can
activate a bunch of them. See you there? Terry's signed up, we just
need to start a few debates.
"Because this group is exclusive to IALD and LIRC members, it will
take 2-3 business days to approve your request. "
Since I don't even know what IALD or LIRC are, seems unlikely
that I will be participating. Ideal way to limit traffic and participation.
Good luck with that.
[/quote:738c27a941]
Apologies, I didn't realize that one had restricted membership.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=133941&trk=myg_ugrp_ovr (Lighting
Designer's Group) is fairly active.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=66644&trk=myg_ugrp_ovr (liGHTnet)
is less active but has potential.
Not sure if those links will work for you.
T. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
