Maybe this idea is just too postmodern.
July 18, 2001 2:55 PM   Subscribe

Maybe this idea is just too postmodern. But then a usenet group about a discussion group would never work would it? Best keep using Metatalk then . . .
posted by feelinglistless (16 comments total)

 
People still use usenet? I don't understand why. Web-based communities are so much more versatile.
posted by ktheory at 2:58 PM on July 18, 2001


...just too postmodern. Perhaps it is. Usenet is good for other things, say as a model for distribution. If somehow one proliferated a "mefi://" protocol for interchange of threads, it could potentially solve future bandwith concerns....
posted by rschram at 3:11 PM on July 18, 2001


Technologically, I think a newsgroup would actually be a better way of doing everything we do on Metafilter. Posts are faster to load, it's threaded (although that can actually be bad if you want to follow a discussion), and it's a standard protocol. Also.. no graphics or 'template bumph'.

On the other hand, if metafilter was a newsgroup, we wouldn't have a lot of the people we have here.. i.e. the people who don't want to use (or don't know how to use) newsgroups.

Also, metafilter encourages a high signal-to-noise ratio. I'm not sure why, but people are less likely to post crap to the front page of Mefi than they are to post crap in a newsgroup.

So, while I think the way newsgroups work is superior to a system like MeFi, MeFi certainly encourages and cultivates better discussions than most newsgroups ever could, and is the easiest medium for many members to use.
posted by wackybrit at 3:21 PM on July 18, 2001


Shouldn't this be in USENET?
posted by mathowie at 3:25 PM on July 18, 2001


In the future, things will get to the point where coverage is about the meta -coverage of the meta coverage of the coverage of actual events.

Bring it on!
posted by owillis at 3:45 PM on July 18, 2001


ktheory: People still use usenet? I don't understand why. Web-based communities are so much more versatile

The range of newsreaders out there means that you have much more control over your interface to Usenet. On a web-based community, you're stuck with whatever interface the page designer has made. Usenet has well-established newsgroups on all sorts of different subjects. You can filter messages in Usenet, in fairly complicated ways if you're up to it. Since newsreaders are specifically for reading news, they tend to be better suited for it than anything you could do in HTML.

Which is not to say web-based communities can't also be deeply wonderful. MetaFilter has better conversation than I've seen anywhere since the BBSes I used to hang out on died. But, having started to read Usenet again in the past couple of months, I have to say it's very impressive.

All that said, I'm not sure what the point of alt.metafilter would be. Although the whole world domination side of it is rather appealing.
posted by moss at 3:55 PM on July 18, 2001


Maybe the USENET feller knew it was a self-link and belonged in MetaTalk anyway. :-)
posted by cCranium at 4:29 PM on July 18, 2001


What's www.1142.org?
posted by david hedge at 5:01 PM on July 18, 2001


Find out the meaning behind 1142 over at discussion 1142.
posted by wackybrit at 5:56 PM on July 18, 2001


Oil your browser first.
posted by dhartung at 6:02 PM on July 18, 2001


If nothing else, maybe there wouldn't be the messianic adoration of Matt Haughey if metafilter were a usenet list...

On the other hand, there's Kibo, isn't there?
posted by crunchland at 9:00 PM on July 18, 2001


Matt Haughey is Kibo? That explains so much.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 9:01 PM on July 18, 2001


Dear God! I've got Kibo on my hand!
posted by kindall at 9:19 PM on July 18, 2001


In the future, things will get to the point where coverage is about the meta -coverage of the meta coverage of the coverage of actual events.

Welcome to the future.

Matt Haughey is Kibo? That explains so much.

Actually, no. Apparently, he's a clone
posted by fooljay at 9:45 PM on July 18, 2001


> People still use usenet? I don't understand why.

One thing I miss about USENET is long-running discussions. On community weblogs, topics die out too quickly. A new subject + link is posted, there's a rush of comments on this new topic, and then after a day or two people quit looking at the thread. If I happen to see something old that I'd like to comment on, I know nobody's going to see my comment unless I take the subject back to the top page (and then I know somebody's going to yammer at me about double posts.)

On USENET, you see a post from last week that you'd like to comment on so you quote some of the older text (carefully taking it out of context, of course), post a follow-up with the same Subject: header, and everybody sees it show up as a new message and knows there's something new relating to the previous topic. Certain USENET threads have gone on for years attracting new posts.
posted by jfuller at 6:01 AM on July 19, 2001


We had a thread called "Happy Thanksgiving" on one of my newsgroups go on until almost the next Thanksgiving, I think, with many changes in subject :)

And then there are the cross-posted flamewars, like when Andy Roberts of alt.fan.bonzo-dog responds to some misguided spammer's post and ends up in a fight with a bunch of vicious dog owners. That's always fun.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:00 AM on July 20, 2001


« Older Prison riot imminent. Film at 11....  |  Vinegar prank backfires on fis... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments