Fading Usenet Newsgroups - the next step
Thomas Paterson
These groups have been great over the past ten or twelve years for me
- I've stayed in touch with friends, learned a huge amount from you
all and, I hope, contributed what little I can. Thank you to all.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to find time for the groups
when most of the times I look, there is nothing. I fear that we are
witnessing the death-rattle of the terminally... well, I don't think
they have a great deal of life left. My suggestion is to switch both
rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft and sci.engr.lighting over onto
linkedin.com. I'm finding its groups to be vibrant and growing, and
largely spam free (we'll see how long that lasts!). I also like that
it gives you access to people's broader professional backgrounds, so
it helps you find specific people as well as a forum. Maybe some
anonymity is lost, but not a huge amount in reality as you don't have
to give anyone access to your information.
Is there anyone who would like to comment on this idea? Come on out
of the woodwork, lurkers!
Thomas Paterson - RATS SEL junkie.
Christopher Jahn
news:cf705737-4d54-4f67...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups
.com:
I find all the web-based forums to be too primitive; not the
content, but the actual interface. I belong to several, but I
find them harder to use than this tired ol' usenet forum.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Richard Crowley
> These groups have been great over the past ten or twelve years for me
> - I've stayed in touch with friends, learned a huge amount from you
> all and, I hope, contributed what little I can. Thank you to all.
>
> I am finding it increasingly difficult to find time for the groups
> when most of the times I look, there is nothing. I fear that we are
> witnessing the death-rattle of the terminally... well, I don't think
> they have a great deal of life left.
Predictably, you are reading this newsgroup on Google Groups.
Please remember that "Google Groups" IS NOT USENET.
The problem is not Usenet newsgroups. Thousands of them are
thriving quite nicely today just as they have for decades.
Please DO NOT judge what Usenet looks like from your POV
through the dirty little "Google Groups" keyhole. You are seeing
not only a kludge user interface, but Google Groups itself is now
the number one source of spam on Usenet.
> My suggestion is to switch both
> rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft and sci.engr.lighting over onto
> linkedin.com.
No web-based forum holds a candle to real Usenet. If you only
know Usenet through a web-based interface like Google Groups,
then you don't really know Usenet. All web-based forums are
dramatically inferior to Usenet, and Google Groups is far and
away Worst of Breed.
Likely many of us also use web-based forums for certain
specialty topics, particularly forums that are chartered for the
discussion of certain hardware and or software, etc. But the
Usenet newsgroups continue to be orders of magnitude faster
and more efficient than any web-based forum I have seen in
20 years. Yes, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo
Groups, and most certainly Google Groups.
> Is there anyone who would like to comment on this idea?
Web-based forums are HORRID. I avoid them unless absolutely
necessary. If you have never used a real Usenet newsreader client
and a proper Usenet NNTP server, then you are in no position to
judge what is happening to this or any other Usenet newsgroup.
I was just checking two Yahoo Groups I read regularly. It took
me TWICE as long just to review the action on those TWO groups
than it did for me to review the TEN usenet newsgrops (including
this one) that I read regularly.
Everyone who comes here complaining about newsgroups is
practically guaranteed to be using the horrible Google Groups
user interface. Please try the REAL Usenet before complaining
about Usenet. You are not necessarily seeing what is really
happening on Usenet if you have only the POV from Google.
Note also that because of Google's horrible reputation of being
the source of most spam today, many real Usenet users filter
out everything from Google Groups (and some even filter out
everyone who is using a gmail address).
Duncan Wood
wrote:
None of which alters the fact that this newsgroup whether accessed from
googlr groups or by nntp has almost no traffic compared with any of the
web forums.
Andrew Gabriel
Thomas Paterson <t_p_pa...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Dear All,
>
> These groups have been great over the past ten or twelve years for me
> - I've stayed in touch with friends, learned a huge amount from you
> all and, I hope, contributed what little I can. Thank you to all.
>
> I am finding it increasingly difficult to find time for the groups
> when most of the times I look, there is nothing. I fear that we are
> witnessing the death-rattle of the terminally... well, I don't think
> they have a great deal of life left. My suggestion is to switch both
> rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft and sci.engr.lighting over onto
> linkedin.com. I'm finding its groups to be vibrant and growing, and
Sorry, but I won't be switching to a web-based forum.
Wastes too much of my time.
Perhaps you need a better newsreader?
Mine only draws my attention to this group when there's
new material in it.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> Thomas Paterson <t_p_pa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I am finding it increasingly difficult to find time for the
> > groups when most of the times I look, there is nothing. I
> > fear that we are witnessing the death-rattle of the
> > terminally... well, I don't think they have a great deal of
> > life left. My suggestion is to switch over to
> > linkedin.com.
(Snip)
> > Thomas Paterson
> I find all the web-based forums to be too primitive;
> not the content, but the actual interface.
*** I'll say.
> I belong to several, but I find them harder to use than this tired ol'
> usenet forum.
> --
> Christopher Jahn
*** I agree. I hate dealing with on-line forms and the layout of forum
threading. A browser is not a newsreader.
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> Thomas Paterson wrote:
> > I am finding it increasingly difficult to find time for the groups
> > when most of the times I look, there is nothing. I fear that we are
> > witnessing the death-rattle of the terminally... well, I don't think
> > they have a great deal of life left.
> Predictably, you are reading this newsgroup on Google Groups.
> Please remember that "Google Groups" IS NOT USENET.
*** Yup.
> The problem is not Usenet newsgroups. Thousands of them are
> thriving quite nicely today just as they have for decades.
*** I belong to several dozen and many of them are indeed thriving.
> No web-based forum holds a candle to real Usenet. If you only
> know Usenet through a web-based interface like Google Groups,
> then you don't really know Usenet. All web-based forums are
> dramatically inferior to Usenet, and Google Groups is far and
> away Worst of Breed.
*** If only one could use a newsreader to access those forums,
with *all* the features intact, that would go a long way to
improving the Internet forum interface.
> Web-based forums are HORRID. I avoid them unless absolutely
> necessary. If you have never used a real Usenet newsreader client
> and a proper Usenet NNTP server, then you are in no position to
> judge what is happening to this or any other Usenet newsgroup.
*** I agree.
> I was just checking two Yahoo Groups I read regularly. It took
> me TWICE as long just to review the action on those TWO groups
> than it did for me to review the TEN usenet newsgrops (including
> this one) that I read regularly.
(Snip)
*** Yup.
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> None of which alters the fact that this newsgroup whether accessed from
> googlr groups or by nntp has almost no traffic compared with any of the
> web forums.
*** Then we should advertise it more. My experience is that fewer
persons today even know what Usenet is. )-:
To that end, I shall put links to both groups on to our "Backstage
Pass" section along with a suggestion to use a newsreader for best access.
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz/BackStag.html
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> Thomas Paterson <t_p_pa...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > My suggestion is to switch both rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft and
> > sci.engr.lighting over to linkedin.com.
> Sorry, but I won't be switching to a web-based forum.
> Wastes too much of my time.
*** Does it ever!
Also for myself, the frustration of using a browser to read "news"
turns to anger. Being angry all the time when posting does not make for
good posts, nor does it make for good health.
> Perhaps you need a better newsreader?
> Mine only draws my attention to this group when there's
> new material in it.
> --
> Andrew Gabriel
*** As there is for this discussion. )-:
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz
Thomas Paterson
> Thomas Paterson wrote:
> Predictably, you are reading this newsgroup on Google Groups.
> Please remember that "Google Groups" IS NOT USENET.
>
> The problem is not Usenet newsgroups. Thousands of them are
> thriving quite nicely today just as they have for decades.
> Please DO NOT judge what Usenet looks like from your POV
> through the dirty little "Google Groups" keyhole. You are seeing
> not only a kludge user interface, but Google Groups itself is now
> the number one source of spam on Usenet.
When you've finished patronizing me, perhaps we can have a real
discussion?
I've been using Usenet for over twelve years, I've posted actively to
this group for most of that time. Yes, right now I'm using Google
Groups - why? Well, I'm based in Mexico where ISPs don't provide nntp
servers as part of their service, and from where much NNTP traffic is
blocked when using 3rd party services. (Yes, Mexico is a source of
spam, but I am not).
Were you reading RATS when we were doing 150 posts a day, only 50 of
which were by FW and all of the rest made interesting points?
My point had little to do with Usenet in general, in fact, I can't
speak for anything broader than these two newsgroups and dipping into
other groups when contextual. My point is basically that these
specific, once-vibrant groups aren't, and I proposed a solution to
putting them somewhere where a huge number of lighting professionals
are now represented (about 25% of IALD are active through LinkedIn,
for example). So you don't like web interfaces - fine - valid point.
Now, let's talk about how we revive the RATS and SEL communities, or
where the appropriate place to read is.
Thanks to Richard B for a productive solution - I'll check it out, it
could well be an appropriate move for RATS. I wonder about SEL though
- that needs a less showbiz forum, perhaps.
Thomas Paterson
http://www.luxpopuli.com
Richard Crowley
> Were you reading RATS when we were doing 150 posts a day, only
> 50 of which were by FW and all of the rest made interesting points?
No, I wasn't. But I *currently* read several Usenet newsgroups
with that kind of traffic. I follow about 10 other groups besides
this one. That would be impractical with any web-based discussion
mechanism.
> My point had little to do with Usenet in general, in fact, I can't speak
> for anything broader than these two newsgroups and dipping into
> other groups when contextual. My point is basically that these
> specific, once-vibrant groups aren't, and I proposed a solution to
> putting them somewhere where a huge number of lighting professionals
> are now represented (about 25% of IALD are active through LinkedIn,
> for example). So you don't like web interfaces - fine - valid point.
> Now, let's talk about how we revive the RATS and SEL communities, or
> where the appropriate place to read is.
That is completely a function of word of mouth in the r.a.t.s community.
There are currently other newsgroups that have quite vibrant traffic
on Usenet averaging likely > 100 messages per day.
But you may be right that there is a whole new generation of internet
users who don't know Usenet, or know it only as "Google Groups".
If all they know is "Google Groups" then it is no wonder that things
like LinkedIn, et.al. appear more attractive.
OTOH, I have been signed up with LinkedIn for over a year and
didn't even know that they had anything like discussion fora........
I just spent ~5 minutes looking around the main page and if they
DO have anything like discussion groups, they are pretty well
disguised. I didn't find any.
Boxman
has dropped off significantly over time and traffic is now nearly non
existent. It has been very useful to me in the past, but not so much
anymore. I don't know of any other usenet forums that cover this
topic either so it would be nice to see something started somewhere
else.
Linkedin would be fine with me. The only problem I see with linkedin
is that the amount of groups on a particular topic seems to propogate
quickly and create a lot of noise. For example if you are interested
in solid state lighting, I think there are at least 13 or 14 groups by
my last count that address exactly that topic and there is a lot of
overlap without any value add from having that many groups. Not sure
how it would impact a group geared towards the engineering aspect of
lighting, hopefully that would remain somewhat unique and draw the
right kind of traffic.
Dominic Hargreaves
> I was just checking two Yahoo Groups I read regularly. It took
> me TWICE as long just to review the action on those TWO groups
> than it did for me to review the TEN usenet newsgrops (including
> this one) that I read regularly.
Point of order: Yahoo Groups are available as mailing lists, which
armed with a suitable mail filtering setup are as close to newsgroups
as makes no difference :)
(Hi, btw. Very occasional dabbler in theatre teah lurking here for a
while).
Dominic.
--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
Thomas Paterson
Agreed, this is definitely a problem, although I find that it is a
more thread orientated forum than group orientated, so the fracturing
is less worrying than it could be. They could certainly do with a
filter on people creating groups which says "this topic is similar to
X, please only proceed if there is a difference". That would help.
It's also just a matter of time for LinkedIn to shake out some of the
redundant groups - hell, Usenet did the same thing in the 1990s. I
remember when it was a competition between Rec.Arts.Theatre.Stagecraft
and Alt.Stagecraft amongst numerous others.
There are various engineering groups, but IESNA has one which
presumably stands a good chance of growing on the application and code
side. There's also an Electrical Design Engineering group which
claims that lighting is a part of its scope.
I was even considering setting one up and emailing an advisory to the
old SEL people to see if they're interested in joining. Spam? Not
sure.
T.
Christopher Jahn
news:xZqdnS5NN5WJcyvX...@posted.pcez:
>> I am finding it increasingly difficult to find time for the
>> groups when most of the times I look, there is nothing. I
>> fear that we are witnessing the death-rattle of the
>> terminally... well, I don't think they have a great deal of
>> life left.
>
> Predictably, you are reading this newsgroup on Google Groups.
> Please remember that "Google Groups" IS NOT USENET.
The fact that traffic on this group is in fact WAY DOWN has
nothing to do with Thomas' accessing it via Google Groups. The
fact is that the group has slowed down.
But when I've had questions, people still pop up to answer them.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Reality is the temporary resultant of the struggle between rival
gangs of programmers.
Christopher Jahn
$55m$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Mine only draws my attention to this group when there's
> new material in it.
Which means it hasn't been doing it recently, because there
hasn't been much new material here in the last few months, which
is the point that Thomas is making.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Puritans have one great redeeming feature: their wallets. More
capacious than an elephant's scrotum and just as difficult to
get your hands on. - Black Adder
I.N. Galidakis
> and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote in news:h97ohh
> $55m$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Mine only draws my attention to this group when there's
>> new material in it.
>
> Which means it hasn't been doing it recently, because there
> hasn't been much new material here in the last few months, which
> is the point that Thomas is making.
But Thomas' point notwithstanding, what's wrong with a good newsgroup going
temporarily silent?
Writing from s.e.l., maybe there are no questions for now. Maybe the
participants are working. Maybe they are doing some research and currently have
no questions.
Temporary silence is not an indicator of a newsgroup dying.
Judging from the state of most of the groups I follow, I'd rather say it is an
indicator that the group is in fact very much alive.
--
Ioannis
Stuart Wheaton
> "Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in
> news:xZqdnS5NN5WJcyvX...@posted.pcez:
>
>>> I am finding it increasingly difficult to find time for the
>>> groups when most of the times I look, there is nothing. I
>>> fear that we are witnessing the death-rattle of the
>>> terminally... well, I don't think they have a great deal of
>>> life left.
>> Predictably, you are reading this newsgroup on Google Groups.
>> Please remember that "Google Groups" IS NOT USENET.
>
> The fact that traffic on this group is in fact WAY DOWN has
> nothing to do with Thomas' accessing it via Google Groups. The
> fact is that the group has slowed down.
>
> But when I've had questions, people still pop up to answer them.
>
Recently a few major portals cut Usenet entirely because of a few .bin
groups...
Sadly, or fortunately, FW has gone over to the stagecraft mailing list
and done his level best to destroy that...
I still read here, but weeks go by with little to talk about.
Stuart RATS since 1996
Richard Crowley
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> I was just checking two Yahoo Groups I read regularly. It took
>> me TWICE as long just to review the action on those TWO groups
>> than it did for me to review the TEN usenet newsgrops (including
>> this one) that I read regularly.
>
> Point of order: Yahoo Groups are available as mailing lists,
Yeech. Email lists are even worse than web-based forums.
Dave Vick
and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
> Sorry, but I won't be switching to a web-based forum.
> Wastes too much of my time.
> Perhaps you need a better newsreader?
GMTA
--
Dave Vick
Asst. Carpenter/Rigger
"A Chorus Line" National Tour '08-'??
Don Klipstein
<SNIP down to this later point of USENET vs. a web forum>
>None of which alters the fact that this newsgroup whether accessed from
>googlr groups or by nntp has almost no traffic compared with any of the
>web forums.
One problem I see is that when a Usenet newsgroup is evaporated into web
forum alternatives, there is often more than one.
USENET is more central despite being more unruly, and the Web
alternatives are dispersed into some bad case of a "diaspora"...
Meanwhile, I find sci.engr.lighting to be an especially civilized USENET
newsgroup largely lacking the items that are complained about befalling
mainly the 10,000-or-whatever other USENET newsgroups.
==========================
I sense that sci.engr.lighting is analogous to a little-known tavern
hidden out-of-the-way but in-the-middle-of-everything, maybe on a
less-traveled street in a "slightly-away-from-downtown" location under
ramps to/from the highway(s) from "downtown" to the airport. As in a
location "out-of-the-way" but more accessible than "City Hall" of most
major cities.
And that this location is eschewed by the "biker gangs" and their ilk,
due to lack of loot. What do we have here? Vic Roberts often sitting
here in a "smoking jacket" maybe and being as likely as anyone else as
having saomething to say and very likely to say it well? The younger of
the J. Waymouths? Others of the "rogues" in
http://www.cflfacts.com/sel/ ? (As far as I can tell is hosted by Vic
Roberts.)
Even if I am the one here more likely to drink an extra "brewski" or
two...
I do fear for what the fate of Usenet is about to be. I sense that this
unusually civilized Usenet newsgroup is suffering from negativities that
Usenet elsewhere has been befallen by due to being inert/slow to "lose"
tolerance of the evils that motivate many to move to web-based forums.
Does anyone willing to post here have any comments, such as how LED
lighting units fare, even so much as PAR-whatever ones?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
TimR
question. I've liked it because signal to noise was good,
conversation was civil.
I'm old enough to have started reading newsgroups with rn and nn, and
to have posted using vi. Now I have only google groups, and don't
have a clue how I'd even find an old style reader.
And now I usually find forums more useful. The volume is there, the
moderated ones make at least some attempt to reduce the trolls.
I'd guess volume on usenet is down for more than one reason. Of
course the spammers have hurt. But kids that grew up with the
internet have a different style, and they don't write letters, they
text. It's a style thing. There's no way they'll be caught dead on
usenet, and they're already moving away from forums to the next idea.
(By kids I'm referring to anyone born after 1980, the digital
divide.)
I suspect many of the regulars on this newsgroup are of a similar age
to myself, meaning there will be fewer of us over time!
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
(Re: Moving the Newsgroups to Internet Forums))
> I've been using Usenet for over twelve years, I've posted actively to
> this group for most of that time. Yes, right now I'm using Google
> Groups - why? Well, I'm based in Mexico where ISPs don't provide nntp
> servers as part of their service, and from where much NNTP traffic is
> blocked when using 3rd party services. (Yes, Mexico is a source of
> spam, but I am not).
*** What is the cost of Internet access in Mexico?
(Snip)
> ...let's talk about how we revive the RATS and SEL communities, or
> where the appropriate place to read is.
> Thanks to Richard B for a productive solution - I'll check it out, it
> could well be an appropriate move for RATS.
*** Thanks. I hope to get a chance to add those links today.
> I wonder about SEL though
> - that needs a less showbiz forum, perhaps.
> Thomas Paterson
*** Probably true, but any new members would be a plus.
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> In rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft Richard Crowley <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
> > I was just checking two Yahoo Groups I read regularly. It took
> > me TWICE as long just to review the action on those TWO groups
> > than it did for me to review the TEN usenet newsgrops (including
> > this one) that I read regularly.
> Point of order: Yahoo Groups are available as mailing lists, which
> armed with a suitable mail filtering setup are as close to newsgroups
> as makes no difference :)
*** Mailing lists are better than Internet forums as far as coming
close to newsgroups, but no threading is available. I like being able to
delete a thread without ever opening.
> (Hi, btw. Very occasional dabbler in theatre teah lurking here for a
> while).
> Dominic.
*** Lurk away. (-:
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> The fact that traffic on this group is in fact WAY DOWN has
> nothing to do with Thomas' accessing it via Google Groups. The
> fact is that the group has slowed down.
> But when I've had questions, people still pop up to answer them.
> --
> Christopher Jahn
*** I think people still check the group to see if a thread is
interesting, and then post when it is. Perhaps if more topics with a
wider variety of themes were raised, we'd see more participation.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> "Dominic Hargreaves"wrote...
> > Point of order: Yahoo Groups are available as mailing lists,
> Yeech. Email lists are even worse than web-based forums.
*** I prefer over Internet forums them because my mailreader (PINE) will
allow many of the capabilities of my newsreader (TIN), as compared to an
Internet browser.
Thomas Paterson
Agreed (I fall just on the analog side of the digital divide,
apparently, in spite of a degree in Mechatronics!). I think that not
having young blood is half the problem - they asked the questions for
which we take answers for granted and led to a lot of the great
discussions over time. You're probably also right that a lot of the
forums are losing potency for similar reasons. PHP is so 2005. We're
never going to find a forum or technology that will last for ever,
technology and culture moves too fast. What we're looking to do is
make an evolutionary step that doesn't lose the great culture of SEL
but gives it a new lease on life.
The reason I put forward LinkedIn was that it reduces trolls and only
allows industry specific spam as there are membership requirements. I
would happily commit to posting a monthly announcement on SEL telling
people where we've moved to, if we could move the culture over to
another location, be it LinkedIn or elsewhere.
Thomas.
Thomas Paterson
Entertainment Lighting) wrote:
> Thomas Paterson wrote:
> *** What is the cost of Internet access in Mexico?
We pay about US$200 per month for 4mb/s in my office. About $40 for
1.5mb/s at home.
> > I wonder about SEL though
> > - that needs a less showbiz forum, perhaps.
> > Thomas Paterson
>
> *** Probably true, but any new members would be a plus.
Agreed, that's why I put forward LinkedIn, it gathers a lot of IESNA,
PLDA and IALD members. It also shows you what your contacts are
reading, so people can see our membership of such a forum and
hopefully they follow that. It's very civilized as it is people
putting their professional presentation out there to be seen.
There are forums there that are of interest, but the thing that makes
me saddest about the current state of SEL is that so many friends and
people I respect play on this format. I don't want to lose those
connections and that dialog, and I think it will be lost by neglect if
we don't propose a viable way forward.
Thomas Paterson
http://www.luxpopuli.com
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> Duncan Wood wrote:
> > None of which alters the fact that this newsgroup whether accessed from
> > googlr groups or by nntp has almost no traffic compared with any of the
> > web forums.
> *** Then we should advertise it more. My experience is that fewer
> persons today even know what Usenet is. )-:
> To that end, I shall put links to both groups on to our "Backstage
> Pass" section along with a suggestion to use a newsreader for best access.
(Snip)
*** I have added the links. Go to:
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz/BackStag.html
...and select "Newsgroups".
If anyone would like to suggest other suitable newsgroups, please
e-mail me.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Sep 22, 5:43=A0am, TimR <timothy...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I've lurked on this group for many years, asked the occasional
> > question. =A0I've liked it because signal to noise was good,
> > conversation was civil.
> >
> > I'm old enough to have started reading newsgroups with rn and nn, and
> > to have posted using vi. =A0Now I have only google groups, and don't
> > have a clue how I'd even find an old style reader.
*** Most operating systems have news clients available.
> > And now I usually find forums more useful. =A0The volume is there, the
> > moderated ones make at least some attempt to reduce the trolls.
*** Moderation works as long as the moderator's biases are
not introduced.
> > I'd guess volume on usenet is down for more than one reason. =A0Of
> > course the spammers have hurt. =A0But kids that grew up with the
> > internet have a different style, and they don't write letters, they
> > text. =A0It's a style thing. =A0There's no way they'll be caught dead on
> > usenet, and they're already moving away from forums to the next idea.
> > (By kids I'm referring to anyone born after 1980, the digital
> > divide.)
*** It's a valid point, but not universal. Anyone of any age will
gravitate to anything of interest. As I see it, most digital-dividers
don't seem to know that Usenet exists.
> > I suspect many of the regulars on this newsgroup are of a similar age
> > to myself, meaning there will be fewer of us over time!
*** Speak for yourself. I intend to live forever - and you know
something? So far, so good! (-:
> We're
> never going to find a forum or technology that will last for ever,
> technology and culture moves too fast. What we're looking to do is
> make an evolutionary step that doesn't lose the great culture of SEL
> but gives it a new lease on life.
*** As with anything, advertising is the key. If more theatre students
knew of Usenet, then there would be more participation. To that end, I
work with several thousand students in the run of a year and will make a
point to let them know of these groups.
> The reason I put forward LinkedIn was that it reduces trolls and only
> allows industry specific spam as there are membership requirements. I
> would happily commit to posting a monthly announcement on SEL telling
> people where we've moved to, if we could move the culture over to
> another location, be it LinkedIn or elsewhere.
> Thomas.
*** I don't see that a move would be necessary if the traffic here was
to be increased.
Christopher Jahn
news:slrnhbgbk...@manx.misty.com:
> I sense that sci.engr.lighting is analogous to a
> little-known tavern
> hidden out-of-the-way but in-the-middle-of-everything, maybe
> on a less-traveled street in a "slightly-away-from-downtown"
> location under ramps to/from the highway(s) from "downtown" to
> the airport. As in a location "out-of-the-way" but more
> accessible than "City Hall" of most major cities.
>
Geez, you just described alt.callahans - the first virtual bar on
the internet. It's based on the Callahan's Place stories by
Spider Robinson.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Oh, Aunty Em, it's so good to be home!
Victor Roberts
<t_p_pa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 22, 9:51�am, a...@chebucto.ns.ca (Atlantic Illumination
>Entertainment Lighting) wrote:
>> Thomas Paterson wrote:
>
>> *** � What is the cost of Internet access in Mexico?
>We pay about US$200 per month for 4mb/s in my office. About $40 for
>1.5mb/s at home.
>
>
>> > I wonder about SEL though
>> > - that needs a less showbiz forum, perhaps.
>> > Thomas Paterson
>>
>> *** � Probably true, but any new members would be a plus.
>Agreed, that's why I put forward LinkedIn, it gathers a lot of IESNA,
>PLDA and IALD members. It also shows you what your contacts are
>reading, so people can see our membership of such a forum and
>hopefully they follow that. It's very civilized as it is people
>putting their professional presentation out there to be seen.
Perhaps I'm just too old, but why would people reading
something I posted about lighting, or any other subject want
to know what my "contacts" are reading? This all seems a
bit intrusive, especially when you consider that many people
who post here don't even use their real names. (Yes, I
belong to Linkedin, but do not actively participate.)
>There are forums there that are of interest, but the thing that makes
>me saddest about the current state of SEL is that so many friends and
>people I respect play on this format. I don't want to lose those
>connections and that dialog, and I think it will be lost by neglect if
>we don't propose a viable way forward.
>
>Thomas Paterson
>http://www.luxpopuli.com
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
Victor Roberts
I've never owned a smoking jacket, but the image is
intriguing. And, yes, I do host the Rouges Gallery.
(Perhaps I need a more informal photo of myself, one that
more closely represents the real "me." sitting here in my
cluttered office with papers and meters on the desk and the
floor.
> Even if I am the one here more likely to drink an extra "brewski" or
>two...
>
> I do fear for what the fate of Usenet is about to be. I sense that this
>unusually civilized Usenet newsgroup is suffering from negativities that
>Usenet elsewhere has been befallen by due to being inert/slow to "lose"
>tolerance of the evils that motivate many to move to web-based forums.
I use a few web-based forums. Many seem to focus on form
instead of content, and almost all have advertising. Not
for me. The best web-based forums are those that allow
people to participate by e-mail instead of forcing people to
use the web-based interface
> Does anyone willing to post here have any comments, such as how LED
>lighting units fare, even so much as PAR-whatever ones?
Well, I have no field experience, but am about to purchase a
Cree LR6 for some internal testing. The only LED fixture
I use for normal lighting, other than my various LED
flashlights, is a 5-watt LED reading lamp I purchased
directly from the manufacturer in China. It works great and
shows the advantages of LEDs in low light output,
directional applications.
Victor Roberts
<d...@earth.li> wrote:
>In rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft Richard Crowley <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>
>> I was just checking two Yahoo Groups I read regularly. It took
>> me TWICE as long just to review the action on those TWO groups
>> than it did for me to review the TEN usenet newsgrops (including
>> this one) that I read regularly.
>
>Point of order: Yahoo Groups are available as mailing lists, which
>armed with a suitable mail filtering setup are as close to newsgroups
>as makes no difference :)
>
>(Hi, btw. Very occasional dabbler in theatre teah lurking here for a
>while).
>
>Dominic.
I manage a Yahoo group for a particular class of sailboat,
the Pearson Ensign, and each mail message is filled with
junk that needs to be trimmed when responding. Better than
nothing, but certainly not as good as USENET.
Victor Roberts
<timot...@aol.com> wrote:
>I've lurked on this group for many years, asked the occasional
>question. I've liked it because signal to noise was good,
>conversation was civil.
>
>I'm old enough to have started reading newsgroups with rn and nn, and
>to have posted using vi. Now I have only google groups, and don't
>have a clue how I'd even find an old style reader.
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/
They also have a free version.
[snip]
Richard Crowley
> Perhaps I'm just too old, but why would people reading
> something I posted about lighting, or any other subject want
> to know what my "contacts" are reading? This all seems a
> bit intrusive, especially when you consider that many people
> who post here don't even use their real names.
You (and I, to be sure) are of the old school where intelligent
evaulation was a desirable skill. This has been replaced in the
new age simply by more information. Not necessarily correct
information, just more.
> (Yes, I belong to Linkedin, but do not actively participate.)
As do I. But so far, I haven't seen anything compelling enough
to cause me to want to visit more than once every 3-4 months.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> In article <op.u0lkzyo3haghkf@lucy>, Duncan Wood wrote:
> <SNIP down to this later point of USENET vs. a web forum>
> >None of which alters the fact that this newsgroup whether accessed from
> >googlr groups or by nntp has almost no traffic compared with any of the
> >web forums.
> One problem I see is that when a Usenet newsgroup is evaporated into web
> forum alternatives, there is often more than one.
*** Yup. That is what happened to television. So many alternatives
developed that it severely fragmented the audience.
> Does anyone willing to post here have any comments, such as how LED
> lighting units fare, even so much as PAR-whatever ones?
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
*** If anyone does, please retitle the thread. (-:
TKM
"Victor Roberts" <x...@lighting-research.com> wrote in message
news:2n7kb5dhlkp0enlo3...@4ax.com...
Some good points have been raised and Thomas inspired me to check out
LinkedIn again although I've been a member for a while. It's OK, but the
traffic seems more oriented to business contacts and social comments. I was
not able to find any technical discussions. I've also tried other lighting
forums including the one hosted by the California Lighting Technology
Center. All seem to lack critical mass and suffer from a lack of
interesting dialog. So, while I'll continue to check others, our little
sci.eng.lighting still seems be the best for content and it certainly is
easy to use. Something simple that might increase traffic here would be to
post the existence of this group on LinkedIn and others.
Terry McGowan
Richard Crowley
>> One problem I see is that when a Usenet newsgroup is evaporated
>> into web forum alternatives, there is often more than one.
>
> *** Yup. That is what happened to television. So many alternatives
> developed that it severely fragmented the audience.
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!!! Displaying them at 10 per page,
you will have to slog through 24 web pages just to try to guess which
ones look promising.
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 :-)
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.
And with 238 groups on lighting how much traffic do you think there
will be on any one of them? Even if there were only 120 or 60 or
30 different groups on lighting?
All in all, makes Usenet look brillant by comparison.
Andrew Gabriel
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> writes:
> 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!!! Displaying them at 10 per page,
> you will have to slog through 24 web pages just to try to guess which
> ones look promising.
>
> 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 :-)
>
> 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.
>
> And with 238 groups on lighting how much traffic do you think there
> will be on any one of them? Even if there were only 120 or 60 or
> 30 different groups on lighting?
Yep. My day job is Computing (Solaris).
There are loads of linked-in groups for this, but nearly all
were started by recruitment agencies, as a means to harvest
contact details. I had joined several, but it's simply too
painful to follow any of them, and I gave up.
> All in all, makes Usenet look brillant by comparison.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Richard Crowley
> These groups have been great over the past ten or twelve years for me
> - I've stayed in touch with friends, learned a huge amount from you
> all and, I hope, contributed what little I can. Thank you to all.
>
> I am finding it increasingly difficult to find time for the groups
> when most of the times I look, there is nothing. I fear that we are
> witnessing the death-rattle of the terminally... well, I don't think
> rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft and sci.engr.lighting over onto
> linkedin.com. I'm finding its groups to be vibrant and growing, and
> largely spam free (we'll see how long that lasts!). I also like that
> it gives you access to people's broader professional backgrounds, so
> it helps you find specific people as well as a forum. Maybe some
> anonymity is lost, but not a huge amount in reality as you don't have
> to give anyone access to your information.
>
> Is there anyone who would like to comment on this idea? Come on out
> of the woodwork, lurkers!
At this point the Linked-In groups appear to be worse than useless.
Just trying to find and browse a lighting-related group was enough
to make me seriously consider cancelling Linked-In alltoegether.
See my other posting with the details of my experience yesterday.
I can't see any way that a Linked-In group could replace a Usenet
newsgroup, or even a proper web-based discussion forum.
Frankly, making people jump through the hoops to get to Usenet
forms a significant filter of twits and idiots. It was only "Google
Groups" that opened Usenet up to the great unwashed masses
of trolls and spammers. And proper filtering takes care of most
of those.
Thomas Paterson
Partly it involves people like us making some of the groups work - or
going for the groups started by serious organizations - the IALD group
for example? The IESNA group? Great place to rally around. Let the
others atrophy and die. Same was true of Usenet going back fifteen
years.
T.
Victor Roberts
I use Agent to read and post here because I don't like
either the Google Groups user interface or the way some of
those messages appear here. However, I disagree that it is
desirable to make it difficult to read and post to Usenet.
This is what I hear all too often in Linux discussion
groups, and one of the things I think is preventing Linux
from getting a larger "market share."
People with useful things to say about lighting, or any
other subject, do not necessarily have good computer skills.
(And people with good computer skills, do not automatically
have useful things to say about other subjects.)
Many people who have not grown up with a keyboard in their
hands have no idea what Usenet is, and have no idea that
there are programs called Newsreaders. I believe we need to
help them learn about both. I will add a link to this group
on my two web sites, and perhaps also a bit of info about
easily available programs that include newsreader
capability, such as Thunderbird and Outlook Express - though
I have never used the latter.
TKM
Good idea.
Outlook Express works fine as a newsreader.
Terry McGowan
Christopher Jahn
news:h9ifua$dfr$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Victor Roberts" <x...@lighting-research.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Many people who have not grown up with a keyboard in their
>> hands have no idea what Usenet is, and have no idea that
>> there are programs called Newsreaders. I believe we need to
>> help them learn about both. I will add a link to this group
>> on my two web sites, and perhaps also a bit of info about
>> easily available programs that include newsreader
>> capability, such as Thunderbird and Outlook Express - though
>> I have never used the latter.
>>
>
> Good idea.
>
> Outlook Express works fine as a newsreader.
>
Not really. It can be used as one, but it is rife with flaws.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Adding manpower to a late software project only makes it later.
Ken
> Outlook Express works fine as a newsreader.
> Terry McGowan
Richard Crowley
> "TKM" wrote:
>> Outlook Express works fine as a newsreader.
Agree that Outlook Express works great as a newsreader. I continue
to use it even after trying all the leading contenders.
> Almost
> http://www.google.se/search?q=quotefix
Frankly, Quotefix is turning out to be more trouble than it's worth.
My installation didn't include the apparently required graphics icons
for the emoticons, so I just get the red-x "missing graphic" icon to
replace any emoticon in the message. Wasn't clear from the web-
site where to get these images or where to install them. And besides,
it installs YET ANNOTHER resident process to further slow down
my machine. I think I'll be dumping it for negative cost/benefit.
Victor Roberts
<xj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"TKM" <non...@no.net> wrote in
>news:h9ifua$dfr$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> "Victor Roberts" <x...@lighting-research.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Many people who have not grown up with a keyboard in their
>>> hands have no idea what Usenet is, and have no idea that
>>> there are programs called Newsreaders. I believe we need to
>>> help them learn about both. I will add a link to this group
>>> on my two web sites, and perhaps also a bit of info about
>>> easily available programs that include newsreader
>>> capability, such as Thunderbird and Outlook Express - though
>>> I have never used the latter.
>>>
>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>> Outlook Express works fine as a newsreader.
>>
>
>Not really. It can be used as one, but it is rife with flaws.
After thinking about my original post, 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.
I already know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this
comment, but I'm interested to see how bad the comments
really are :-)
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
Richard Crowley
> After thinking about my original post, 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.
So instead, Google makes posting to Usenet newsgroups available
to every slimeball spammer on the planet. Furthermore, they actually
encourage spamming from their other products like Blogspot and
Youtube, et.al. Remember also that more and more Usenet users
are simply filtering everything from Google Groups (and/or people
with a gmail address) as an effective spam-blocking technique.
Note that it takes 5-10 minutes at most to configure even Outlook
Express to connect to independent news services like Eternal-
September or Individual.net, etc.
Victor Roberts
Except for some short periods of intense activity, we have
had very little SPAM in sci.engr.lighting. I don't filter
anything.
Victor Roberts
Google Groups already exists, and will continue to exist
with or without some casual users who want to ask serious
questions about lighting.
Why should our dislike for what Google Groups permits to be
posted to newsgroups prevent us from suggesting this useful
tool to people who may want to join our discussion but do
not know how to set up a newsreader?
And, does your 5 to 10 minute estimate include the time
taken for someone who doesn't even know that newsreaders
exist to figure out what they are, and find the address of
the newsserver hosted by his or her ISP (if they even have
one)?
Christopher Jahn
Valid point, and of course that assumes their ISP still has a
newsserver. Mine doesn't, so I'm using news.eternal-
september.org or sometimes news.aioe.org
You have to register with eternal-september.org, so of course
that's an added layer of complexity.
Me, I'd rather access a newsserver with Xnews than use a web-
based forum. But I've been doing this a long time, now.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're an asshole.
Christopher Jahn
news:7i4bmtF...@mid.individual.net:
Switch to Xnews. It's easy, once you get it setup. Quick and
clean, you can keep it on a thumb-drive.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
You're never alone with schizophrenia.
TimR
>
> >> Outlook Express works fine as a newsreader.
>
> >Not really. It can be used as one, but it is rife with flaws.
>
> After thinking about my original post, 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.
>
> I already know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this
> comment, but I'm interested to see how bad the comments
> really are :-)
>
My home internet is through Comcast cable along with my television.
I use Google because it requires only typing the URL.
I would be willing to make the experiment to try something else, I'm
not sure it is even possible?
Victor Roberts
Well, based on this post, I don't see any reason you should
change. The subject is intact, the message is threaded
properly on my newsreader and the message you are replying
to has been properly quoted. Why is it that your messages
look OK, while others from Google Groups do not?
Does AOL even have a news server?
Duncan Wood
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:35:13 -0400, Victor Roberts wrote:
>
>> This is enough to
>> kill the interest of 95% of computer users.
>
> That is enough to prove they are NOT computer users - if they can't even
> drive an email client!
>
> Sorry, but I truly dislike having to compensate for PEBKAK errors.
>
>
Are either of these groups about computing?
Richard Crowley
> My home internet is through Comcast cable along with my television.
>
> I use Google because it requires only typing the URL.
>
> I would be willing to make the experiment to try something else, I'm
> not sure it is even possible?
It is possible. Thousands of people who have connectivity
via Comcast use proper news servers every hour.
A newsreader client doesn't even require "typing the URL".
Richard Crowley
> Well, based on this post, I don't see any reason you should
> change. The subject is intact, the message is threaded
> properly on my newsreader and the message you are replying
> to has been properly quoted. Why is it that your messages
> look OK, while others from Google Groups do not?
>
> Does AOL even have a news server?
The question is irrelevant. News service can be accessed from
scores (hundreds?) of different providers online. It has nothing to
do with your ISP.
Victor Roberts
Well, my ISP requires a username and password to use their
newsserver. I know that there are many other newsservers I
can choose to use if I am willing to pay for the privilege.
So, do you mean that there are "hundreds" of newsservers
that people can use for no additional charge, or that people
who want to participate in this discussion pay an extra fee,
beyond what they are already paying their own ISP, just to
avoid using a front end to Usenet that you happen to not
like?
And, yes, I did miss the point that the OP uses Comcast and
that Comcast would have newsservers for their customers.
Richard Crowley
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>> The question is irrelevant. News service can be accessed from
>> scores (hundreds?) of different providers online. It has nothing to
>> do with your ISP.
>>
>
> Well, my ISP requires a username and password to use their
> newsserver. I know that there are many other newsservers I
> can choose to use if I am willing to pay for the privilege.
> So, do you mean that there are "hundreds" of newsservers
> that people can use for no additional charge, or that people
For example here is a free news server that has been
mentioned here before (perhaps you missed it)....
http://www.eternal-september.org/
Many users who have had their ISP-provided news service
disappeared have switched to this provider and they all seem
quite satisfied. I can't remember hearing any complaints about it.
Victor Roberts
Nice
Richard Crowley
> 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!!! Displaying them at 10 per page, you will
> have to slog through 24 web pages just to try to guess which ones look
> promising.
>
> 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 :-)
Applied to two groups earlier this week. Also sent a follow-up
message to each "group owner". Still have not received any
clue that either of these people are still alive or that the groups
are still operating. Not even an automated response. Very
underwhelming. Quite possibly even worse than Google.
Christopher Jahn
news:fe225440-ef06-4aac...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups
.com:
> I would be willing to make the experiment to try something
> else, I'm not sure it is even possible?
>
Sure it is. I'm on comcast.
Download the news reader of your choice
enter a news server - news.aioe.org is free, and doesn't require
registration.
The newsreader should prompt you for the rest.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Anything is good and useful if it's made of chocolate.
Christopher Jahn
> Victor Roberts wrote:
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>> The question is irrelevant. News service can be accessed
>>> from scores (hundreds?) of different providers online. It
>>> has nothing to do with your ISP.
>>>
>>
>> Well, my ISP requires a username and password to use their
>> newsserver. I know that there are many other newsservers I
>> can choose to use if I am willing to pay for the privilege.
>> So, do you mean that there are "hundreds" of newsservers
>> that people can use for no additional charge, or that people
>
> For example here is a free news server that has been
> mentioned here before (perhaps you missed it)....
> http://www.eternal-september.org/
You do have to register to get a login, but it's free.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
I hate myself to sleep at night
Christopher Jahn
news:Xns9C935B1...@188.40.43.213:
> TimR <timot...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:fe225440-ef06-4aac-8f3a-0bdab49199b0
@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups
> .com:
>
>> I would be willing to make the experiment to try something
>> else, I'm not sure it is even possible?
>>
>
> Sure it is. I'm on comcast.
>
> Download the news reader of your choice
> enter a news server - news.aioe.org is free, and doesn't
require
> registration.
> The newsreader should prompt you for the rest.
>
In the news server window, you type "nntp.aioe.org"
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
And the less I seek my source for some definitive, closer I am
to fine...
RickR
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am in a similar situation, except that I have tried other methods.
While I am not fond of GGroups, I have adapted to it.
I often think, I will find the time and effort to reconnect via
regular usenet. But, it's been almost 5 years and 3 computers since I
last used one.
BTW: Using DMX even wiring it does not require any computer skills. I
have clients and electricians that prove that point at least once a
week.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> 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!!!
> 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 :-)
*** Oo, I had forgotten about that negative aspect.
> 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.
*** Spam lists aside, as you say, any website owner can create a forum,
which only fragments the audience even further. )-:
> All in all, makes Usenet look brillant by comparison.
*** Perhaps when the dust settles, web forums wil have improved, but I
am not holding my greath.
--
Richard Bonner
http://AIEL.chebucto.biz
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> It was only "Google Groups" that opened Usenet up to the great
> unwashed masses of trolls and spammers.
*** No, there were plenty of those before Google, Richard. )-:
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
(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.
*** I may be misunderstanding here, but what good are graphics on text
newsgroups? - unless they are ASCII art. (-:
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> ...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
*** Then how do they even know anything about computers? All tasks
require some figuring out.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> Does AOL even have a news server?
> --
> Vic Roberts
*** Does AOL even care about their customers?
Richard Crowley
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.
Richard Crowley
> 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.
Thomas Paterson
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.
Richard Crowley
How do we expect any significant number of people to find the time
and develop the patience to DISCOVER them?
Thomas Paterson
One way would be to open a discussion on the older formats drawing
attention to the possibilities...
Richard Crowley
> "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.
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
*** Sounds rather useless, to me.
> It also renders *italic* and _underscore_.
> Bah. Too fancy for my taste.
*** I am not an eye-candy fan, either, Richard.
Thomas Paterson
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.
Richard Crowley
> 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.
Thomas Paterson
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.
Richard Crowley
> 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.
They worked and I applied to both. Thanks, Thomas
Tim Hill
<9d1d9d4b-8a98-4d1d...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Is English the first language on Linkedin?
Thinks like "This group is to connect the lighting designer present on
Liked in." implies there is only one who wants to connect with
him/herself and we shouldn't go there. Typos in a place like that make it
look amateur and ill-conceived. And not 'Liked' ;-)
liGhtnet is camel-case taken a step too far and would appear to have a
childish outlook.
And those two things were found on the pages linked to above. My only
urge is to click the windows' close icon.
Thomas Paterson
> In article
> <9d1d9d4b-8a98-4d1d-b57b-52d476fb4...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Perhaps a little intolerant of our English as a Second Language
friends? I'm suffering through learning to live in a second language,
I rely on a lot of tolerances. Surely we can judge them on content,
or contribute content and see what responses we get? Some of the
English on SEL leaves a little to be desired too!
T.
Sean
> I can understand all native English accents
*All*? Are you quite sure about that?
I can't even understand all the regional accents that are native to England,
let alone some of the denser ones from elsewhere in the UK and beyond. ;)
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Oct 10, 3:30=A0pm, Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > Is English the first language on Linkedin?
> >
> > Thinks like "This group is to connect the lighting designer present on
> > Liked in." implies there is only one who wants to connect with
> > him/herself and we shouldn't go there. Typos in a place like that make it
> > look amateur and ill-conceived. And not 'Liked' ;-)
> >
> > liGhtnet is camel-case taken a step too far and would appear to have a
> > childish outlook.
> >
> > And those two things were found on the pages linked to above. My only
> > urge is to click the windows' close icon.
> Perhaps a little intolerant of our English as a Second Language
> friends? I'm suffering through learning to live in a second language,
> I rely on a lot of tolerances. Surely we can judge them on content,
> or contribute content and see what responses we get? Some of the
> English on SEL leaves a little to be desired too!
> T.
*** The problem is that those who write and speak poorly imply a poor
education on their part. It's hard to attach much weight to comments if
a poster is perceived to have not bothered to learn grade-school subjects.
That leads to the question: "What else has that poster not bothered to
learn?"
Atlantic Illumination Entertainment Lighting
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:13:25 -0700, Thomas Paterson wrote:
> > Perhaps a little intolerant of our English as a Second Language friends?
> > I'm suffering through learning to live in a second language, I rely on a
> > lot of tolerances. Surely we can judge them on content, or contribute
> > content and see what responses we get? Some of the English on SEL
> > leaves a little to be desired too!
> To be frank and directly to the point, I have:
> + little patience for those native speakers of English who can't write
> coherent standard English,
> + more patience for non-native English-speakers who are clearly
> attempting to use good Standard English,
> + zero tolerance of Chinglish and other successful attempts at utterly
> butchering the English language.
*** Include Ebonics in that, please.
> By some that is called "intolerant". I consider it to be a respect for
> good standard English grammar.
*** I consider it respect for education in general, the level of which
has sunk to new lows. )-:
> I see no point in tolerating poor grammar - especially if the result is
> ambiguous - as the person needs to >get up to speed quickly and
> tolerating faulty grammar will not help the person.
*** Yup, it's akin to allowing errors in any subject to pass without
constructive corrections.
> I think tolerance and respect is called for where tolerance and respect
> is due, but not otherwise.
*** I agree.