Where is everyone?
 

Has Usenet completely died? Only 7 posts here today and they were all
spam. For the last three or four days, every Usenet group seems to be
like this. Maybe I've kill filed everyone.

Where is everyone?
 

On 10/10/10 PDT 3:41 PM, rwalker wrote:
Has Usenet completely died? Only 7 posts here today and they were all
spam. For the last three or four days, every Usenet group seems to be
like this. Maybe I've kill filed everyone.

Mebbe! I count all of 13 here since this early a.m.

Usenet is dead!

Film at eleven......

--
john mcwilliams

Where is everyone?
 

On 2010-10-10 18:41:36 -0400, rwalker said:

Has Usenet completely died? Only 7 posts here today and they were all
spam. For the last three or four days, every Usenet group seems to be
like this. Maybe I've kill filed everyone.

The current issue of MacLife has a review of the newest version of
UNISON, which is a usenet newsreader for the mac. While it gives the
software a good review, it asks, and not too subtly, "what's the
point?" Basically saying, Usenet is dead, it's time is over, and
everything it does can now be done better elsewhere on the internet.
--
Michael

Where is everyone?
 

"Michael" wrote in message
news:2010101020443874364-adunc79617@mypacksnet...
Has Usenet completely died? Only 7 posts here today and they were all
spam. For the last three or four days, every Usenet group seems to be
like this. Maybe I've kill filed everyone.

The current issue of MacLife has a review of the newest version of UNISON,
which is a usenet newsreader for the mac. While it gives the software a
good review, it asks, and not too subtly, "what's the point?" Basically
saying, Usenet is dead, it's time is over, and everything it does can now
be done better elsewhere on the internet.
--
Michael



Maybe, but I find that if you have a serious question, you can usually still
get an answer on Usenet. Possibly one of the problems is that the people
who still use Usenet rarely have any questions to ask anymore.

Where is everyone?
 

On 2010-10-11 02:50:25 -0700, "Albert E." said:

"Michael" wrote in message
news:2010101020443874364-adunc79617@mypacksnet...
Has Usenet completely died? Only 7 posts here today and they were all
spam. For the last three or four days, every Usenet group seems to be
like this. Maybe I've kill filed everyone.

The current issue of MacLife has a review of the newest version of
UNISON, which is a usenet newsreader for the mac. While it gives the
software a good review, it asks, and not too subtly, "what's the
point?" Basically saying, Usenet is dead, it's time is over, and
everything it does can now be done better elsewhere on the internet.
--
Michael



Maybe, but I find that if you have a serious question, you can usually
still get an answer on Usenet. Possibly one of the problems is that
the people who still use Usenet rarely have any questions to ask
anymore.

Usenet still has its followers, and there will be those who come and
go, and perhaps return with a different face from time to time.
I have noticed that many of the Usenet newcomers show up because they
have a question to ask, and have not been able to find an answer
elsewhere.
....and sometimes it is a long time contributor who is unable to find an
answer. I believe the numbers of lurkers, fully qualified to give
meaningful answers, far exceeds that of active participants. From time
to time they reveal themselves to provide that answer, or assistance. I
have a feeling they remain hidden for the most part, to avoid getting
involved in flame wars.

You just have to be a little more selective in choosing a group for
asking those questions.
Certainly many groups have been usurped by "flame warriors" and trolls,
but with a little discrete reading, verification, and confirmation,
answers can be found when they are sincerely given.

A good filter and kill-file set up also helps.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Where is everyone?
 

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010101103471516807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Maybe, but I find that if you have a serious question, you can usually
still get an answer on Usenet. Possibly one of the problems is that the
people who still use Usenet rarely have any questions to ask anymore.

Usenet still has its followers, and there will be those who come and go,
and perhaps return with a different face from time to time.
I have noticed that many of the Usenet newcomers show up because they have
a question to ask, and have not been able to find an answer elsewhere.
...and sometimes it is a long time contributor who is unable to find an
answer. I believe the numbers of lurkers, fully qualified to give
meaningful answers, far exceeds that of active participants. From time to
time they reveal themselves to provide that answer, or assistance. I have
a feeling they remain hidden for the most part, to avoid getting involved
in flame wars.

You just have to be a little more selective in choosing a group for asking
those questions.
Certainly many groups have been usurped by "flame warriors" and trolls,
but with a little discrete reading, verification, and confirmation,
answers can be found when they are sincerely given.

A good filter and kill-file set up also helps.



One of the things to also consider is that that many Usenet users have
probably been using the internet for a while and have become essentially
'bored' of the internet in a sense. It's now no longer an exiting toy and
has evolved much the same way I would imagine newspapers, magazines and
television did in their era.

In reality, the last exiting thing to happen on the internet was Google
Maps/Street View. But once you've travelled the globe and tried to find
something interesting to see at Area 51, etc, even that becomes a bit blah.
As for camera technology, it just trundles along, so nothing really exiting
happening there to talk about either ATM. At least not on the same scale as
when digital sensors became affordable in consumer cameras.

As for me, I don't kill-file anyone on Usenet, because sometimes "flame
warriors" and "trolls" make interesting reading. And, as for the spammers,
it's a waste of time trying to block them anyway.

Where is everyone?
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
I think anyone who fails to be enthused by
the application of newly developed technologies to photography is just
jaded, or not genuinely interested in the subject.


Yup, got my personality profile down to a tee. Errr...

Where is everyone?
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...

I think anyone who fails to be enthused by
the application of newly developed technologies to photography is just
jaded, or not genuinely interested in the subject.


Either that, or they haven't yet finished paying for last years technology,
along with the optional five year guarentee.


michael adams

....

Where is everyone?
 

"Michael" wrote in message
news:2010101020443874364-adunc79617@mypacksnet...

Basically saying, Usenet is dead, it's time is over, and
everything it does can now be done better elsewhere on the
internet.
--
Michael


Better ?

In terms of usability, IME most web forums are about on a par with
Google Groups and chocolate teapots.

The point about Usenet is that all newsreaders follow similar
conventions about displaying threads and messages, and in respect
to quoting etc. Once the user has mastered those for any particular
Newsreader there's nothing more to learn. With web forums they
all seem to follow different conventions. And a majority of users
on many forums seem totally unable to quote, but simply make comments
which are totally devoid of context.

With Usenet it's possible to scan 20 different newsgroups covering
loads of different areas in the space of a couple of minutes, and decide
whether or not there are any threads which seem worth reading.

I doubt that would be possible with web forums.

For Usenet all that's needed is plain text - posters can link to
URL's and pictures if they choose. It's not a case of "doing it better".
In this case at least, no other features are actually necessary.


michael adams

....

Where is everyone?
 

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:24:23 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

snip


For Usenet all that's needed is plain text - posters can link to
URL's and pictures if they choose. It's not a case of "doing it better".
In this case at least, no other features are actually necessary.


michael adams

...




Well said.