Re: Any suggestions? - newsgroups

["John M" <***>]

Tim, thanks for the approval, I really do not know what to reply, so I shut
up.
One comment though: a common mitake on lists arises from the moindless
clicking on the 'reply' button, when a long time obsolete Subject-line
appears....
Could we reconsider the subjects and write in our post's topic?
(It would be hard on the archiving, but eg. I don't buy a car for its
beautiful stereo equipment/sound).\

John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Any suggestions? - newsgroups


> John,
>
> You bring up an interesting notion:
> > a thread
> > starts to proliferate - skewed into different and even more different
> > topical corners, everybody happily regurgitating hisher own favorites.
No
> > concern about the topic, they just click Reply and write a differen
thing.
>
> ...plus....
> > It is high time to invent the internet as a live construct which
> > has its own
> > sexlife.
>
> Imagine a discussion "environment" where posts are initially
> undifferentiated. Then as threads progress down generations of "offspring
> posts" they wander into assorted topical "ecosystems" on their own. So
that
> one could look at topics historically (those portions of threads that
> previously wandered into that particular topical region) to get
information
> on a topic, but there would be no predefined categorizations for initial
> posts. How would the topical areas get defined? Manually? AI? I don't
know.
> Does something like this already exist?
>
> It strikes me as useful in the sense that then there is no "off-topic"
> thread - each thread segment will find its own topical region(s) to
occupy.
> And (in the best of all possible worlds) so would spam find its own
topical
> backwater ecosystem, thereby freeing users from endless spam annoyance.
It's
> been awhile since I read his book and it is packed away now, but Tim
> Berners-Lee (sp?), the guy who invented the web, talked about a semantic
web
> as something like a next-step in internet functionality.
>
> I agree that the converse (heavily enforcing categorized threads up-front)
> will usually fail. I've seen that happen repeatedly, even on computer
gaming
> discussion boards I used to haunt.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 3:29 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Any suggestions? - newsgroups
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> > you have to get to know the biology of lists. Un lively groups a thread
> > starts to proliferate - skewed into different and even more different
> > topical corners, everybody happily regurgitating hisher own favorites.
No
> > concern about the topic, they just click Reply and write a differen
thing.
> > If a moderator activates topics to orfer, they die. There were atempts
on
> > the 3-4 Psych lists, unsuccessfully.
> > It is high time to invent the internet as a live construct which
> > has its own
> > sexlife. The joke that comes to mind (sorry: they do to me about
> > everything):
> > The colonel orders the sergeant to command something for the platoon. He
> > bends to the ear of the first man and whispers in.
> > Colonel: What was that? I ordered the move for everyone! Sergeant: Sir,
it
> > will spread, believe me.
> > If a topic is interesting to a lot of people, it will spread without
> > artificial PR. If not, you can do anything in vain.
> > The other point is the tide of interest. There are surge-times
> > and low tide
> > spells. Like in highway traffic. Or economy.
> >
> > Best regards
> > John
>