Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 8084

Shown: posts 20 to 44 of 58. Go back in thread:

 

Re: GRC Newsgroups

Posted by oracle on November 11, 2002, at 16:12:27

In reply to Re: GRC Newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2002, at 1:16:43

> Sorry, "chunks of header and body"?

Sorry, I am still ill and as of late am
no making sense.

You download headers, select the threads you want to read and download them all.

>
> > Or, flag threads to watch and download headers and bodies as they grow
>
> You mean you can just "leave it on" and have them added in real time? Now *that* would be neat...

Yep
>
> > using a newsreader means some processing is offloaded from your server to the user.
> >
> > oracle
>
> What part of the processing is that?

One big get for the headers and bodies vs hundereds of little http gets if viewed by
web.

 

The absolute BEST Internet Bulletin Board..Infopop

Posted by jay on November 11, 2002, at 17:13:07

In reply to Re: GRC Newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2002, at 1:16:43

I REALLY wish *somebody* would look at the Infopop "Ultimate Bulletin Board System".(In my post above) It is, hands down, the ABSOLUTE best, most flexible, and very, very AMAZING internet bulletin board available. It's kinda like the 'Porsche' of internet bulletin boards. It just CAN'T be beat..period.

Jay

 

Re: Newsgroups ty for new infolost

Posted by lostsailor on November 11, 2002, at 19:00:42

In reply to Re: GRC Newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2002, at 1:16:43

Yes, I just sa the simple text with easy to use link to end email today, though for now I will follow. HHMM, right under my nose and i started all this . ~Tony

 

Re: size of box, newsgroups

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2002, at 21:00:34

In reply to Re: GRC Newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 11, 2002, at 16:12:27

> > I know some people, myself included, would prefer a larger box to enter posts into. Sometimes I just type into Word and copy and paste.
> >
> > But it might also be possible to let people adjust the size of the box. If I were to make aspects of this interface customizable, should I start there?
>
> In answer to your question. YES!!!!!
>
> Other than the size of the box

Just to be clear, that's the one specific aspect I have in mind...

> the other thing that really frustrates me is the way that you can suddenly just lose a post that you've just composed (for example if you accidently forget to put in your password, or if you accidently check the "no message, just post the above subject" box, or if you go back and check up on a previous post in a thread because you need to refer to it for your current post)
>
> bluedog

You can't just go "back" in those cases?

----

> I am still ill and as of late am no making sense.

Sorry to hear that, hope you feel better soon!

> You download headers, select the threads you want to read and download them all.

OK, got it. Two steps, and you save on the second because you skip some threads.

> > > using a newsreader means some processing is offloaded from your server to the user.
>
> One big get for the headers and bodies vs hundereds of little http gets if viewed by web.

And one big transfer is easier on the server than a hundred little transfers, even if the total amount transferred is the same?

> > > Or, flag threads to watch and download headers and bodies as they grow
> >
> > You mean you can just "leave it on" and have them added in real time? Now *that* would be neat...
>
> Yep

Hmm, well, I guess a web page could be set to refresh itself periodically...

Bob

 

Icons n other stuff

Posted by shar on November 12, 2002, at 10:36:00

In reply to Re: folder/file system..an example » Dr. Bob, posted by jay on November 10, 2002, at 16:29:27


> you could even let people choose from a pre-approved (or personalized..with your approval) icons associated with the user name.

Maybe it's my old, tired eyes, but this is one of the features I find distracting (and that can take a long time to load on my puter) in other places I post. I usually turn off graphics when I go to sites with icons (which can create its own problems because sometimes there are navigation tools that are graphics without tags).

IMHO, plain is good. When the board for Social or Admin comes up, it is an easy to read list of threads in text format, and responding is easy (doesn't have some responses indented and others not, for example, which is often how I get lost), and a new window opens when I click on a post so the original list of threads is always there.

One example of what I do to make it even more simple is to resize my post-reading window to be somewhat smaller than the board's window. So, to get from a post back to the board I just click outside the post-window's frame onto the yellow of the board-window, and (voila!) there I am again.

That sounds complex to me even with a straightforward system.

I guess imo pb isn't fancy, but to me, it is very user friendly, which a lot of sites with more 'features' are not. And, for this particular site, I feel like the user-friendliness is really important (and even moreso for people who are posting in a language other than English, and translating).

Shar

 

Re: to make it even more simple

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 12, 2002, at 17:57:05

In reply to Icons n other stuff, posted by shar on November 12, 2002, at 10:36:00

> One example of what I do to make it even more simple is to resize my post-reading window to be somewhat smaller than the board's window. So, to get from a post back to the board I just click outside the post-window's frame onto the yellow of the board-window, and (voila!) there I am again.

Have you ever tried the frames? For example:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/babble.html

Bob

 

Re: The absolute BEST Internet Bulletin Board..Infopop » jay

Posted by IsoM on November 12, 2002, at 19:58:14

In reply to The absolute BEST Internet Bulletin Board..Infopop, posted by jay on November 11, 2002, at 17:13:07

Jay, I like the looks of that board but I think the icons, avatars, & the rest of the format may be a little too much for many. I know my mother would rather drive a boring car with automatic transmission than a fancy Porshe with a standard. Many people are like that about the internet. The simpler, the better for most.

By the way, thanks for that link! I now have a simple but fun Red Dwarf game from the sci-fi forum.

 

Re: size of box, newsgroups

Posted by oracle on November 12, 2002, at 22:53:43

In reply to Re: size of box, newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2002, at 21:00:34

> And one big transfer is easier on the server than a hundred little transfers, even if the total amount transferred is the same?

The server is less concerned with size, that threads (also called processes). 100 pages loaded
is ~ 100 httpd treads started. Me fetching the board via NNTP all at once.

The other advantage of NNTP is it is as old a protocal as any on the web. Every mail reader supports it.

 

Re: size of box, newsgroups » Dr. Bob

Posted by bluedog on November 13, 2002, at 3:57:03

In reply to Re: size of box, newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 11, 2002, at 21:00:34

>
> > the other thing that really frustrates me is the way that you can suddenly just lose a post that you've just composed (for example if you accidently forget to put in your password, or if you accidently check the "no message, just post the above subject" box, or if you go back and check up on a previous post in a thread because you need to refer to it for your current post)
> >
> > bluedog
>
> You can't just go "back" in those cases?
>
> ----
>
> Bob

Many times when I attempt to go back it tells me that the page has expired and the post is gone for good.

Is there some way I can avoid this?

 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2002, at 8:26:42

In reply to Re: size of box, newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 12, 2002, at 22:53:43

> > And one big transfer is easier on the server than a hundred little transfers, even if the total amount transferred is the same?
>
> The server is less concerned with size, that threads (also called processes). 100 pages loaded is ~ 100 httpd treads started. Me fetching the board via NNTP all at once.

Hmm, I know the number of simultaneous server processes is limited. But these 100 wouldn't be simultaneous... And there's also the user side, for them it's one long wait vs. 100 short ones...

> The other advantage of NNTP is it is as old a protocal as any on the web. Every mail reader supports it.

Well, that's the other thing, how many people even have a newsreader anymore?

Bob

 

Re: lose a post

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2002, at 8:36:43

In reply to Re: size of box, newsgroups » Dr. Bob, posted by bluedog on November 13, 2002, at 3:57:03

> > > the other thing that really frustrates me is the way that you can suddenly just lose a post that you've just composed (for example if you accidently forget to put in your password, or if you accidently check the "no message, just post the above subject" box, or if you go back and check up on a previous post in a thread because you need to refer to it for your current post)
>
> Many times when I attempt to go back it tells me that the page has expired and the post is gone for good.
>
> Is there some way I can avoid this?

Hmm, I don't think those pages are *set* to expire like that... So maybe it has to do with your browser? Does anyone else have any ideas?

Bob

 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 10:50:37

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2002, at 8:26:42

> > The other advantage of NNTP is it is as old a protocal as any on the web. Every mail reader supports it.
>
> Well, that's the other thing, how many people even have a newsreader anymore?
>
> Bob

Well, if *every mail reader* supports it, I would think most people have a news reader !

Outlook/outlook express & netscape do.


 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 11:18:52

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 10:50:37

I don't use outlook or any other mail system, and I don't use netscape!!! No newsgroup broswer for me..

Personally, I don't like the news group style.. Il ike this site as it is as its easy for me to follow..

Nikki

 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 15:37:41

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 11:18:52

> I don't use outlook or any other mail system, and I don't use netscape!!! No newsgroup broswer for me..
>
> Personally, I don't like the news group style.. Il ike this site as it is as its easy for me to follow..
>
> Nikki

Sigh.

 

Re: newsgroups » oracle

Posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 16:41:39

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 15:37:41

Oracle, why the sigh?? I simply stated my preference like you had been.

I have alot of experience on the net and know what i like, and what i don't like. I have left many message boards etc as the format just wasn't what I class as user friendly.

This site, as it is, is very user friendly, and can be used by people who have very little knowledge of computers and the net.

Like i said, just my opinion.

Nikki

 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 16:43:23

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 11:18:52

> Personally, I don't like the news group style.. Il ike this site as it is as its easy for me to follow..
>
> Nikki

1) Any browser is a news reader
2) I was not sugesting moving too news group format, rather adding it as an option
3) Nikki, god forbid you learn anything new from the internet

 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 17:02:09

In reply to Re: newsgroups » oracle, posted by NikkiT2 on November 13, 2002, at 16:41:39

> Oracle, why the sigh?? I simply stated my preference like you had been.

It has been my experience that any time a good idea is suggested that might mean a slight change
there is a big back lash here. I see this every time a new board is suggested, this despite the new boards doing quite well. To listen to the complaints one would of never thought these boards would do so well.

 

Re: newsgroups » oracle

Posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 17:14:30

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 17:02:09

You think the new boards are doing well? I keep feeling compelled to read the book just so the discussion thread on the book board will be a bit longer. The reunion boards are rarely used, although if they provide a safe place for some of my favorite posters, I withdraw my objections on principle to them. The faith board is so circumscribed that there is little activity on it. I often get the odd idea that those who feel the freest to post on it are the atheists and agnostics, because everyone else is afraid of saying something, well, religious.

I must confess to a fondness for PPB, and think it's a good place to be able to look thru the archives and see the same situations that inevitably come up over and over all in once place.

Even PSB has been awfully slow. The meds board remains thriving.

I have no particular objection to any of the boards, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to describe them as doing "so well".

Ah well, a difference in perception I guess.

As to the visual aesthetics involved with newsgroups vs. Babble, it's not a question of change to me. It's more a question of a rather linearly organized brain that deals more easily with this format. I'm sure that those of you that are more spatially oriented would find the other format appealing.

 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 18:54:04

In reply to Re: newsgroups » oracle, posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 17:14:30

The faith board is so circumscribed that there is little activity on it. I often get the odd idea that those who feel the freest to post on it are the atheists and agnostics, because everyone else is afraid of saying something, well, religious.

Well, one person has not problems posting about his religion.

I do think it was a cop out on Dr Bob to offer that board. The whole religion issue is a can o worms. Creating a board just the please one person and deal with a problem, I think, is just creating another.

Or to look at it another way, Bob bends over backwards if someone is not well liked and the rest feel short changed.

 

Re: Another difference in perspective. (nm) » oracle

Posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 19:51:55

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 18:54:04

 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 22:30:28

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 18:54:04

I often get the odd idea that those who feel the freest to post on it are the atheists and agnostics, because everyone else is afraid of saying something, well, religious.


Huh ? ASAICT as long as one's god does not call us all fools, everyone elses ability to "saying something religious" is not prohibited.
Diana, I am really suprized you made that statement.

Perhaps it is the first time " atheists and agnostics" get to speak up and their beliefs are held equal to the religious peoples.


 

Re: newsgroups » oracle

Posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 22:51:16

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 22:30:28

Awww, don't take offense. I have nothing against atheists or agnostics, or their speaking of their beliefs.

I'm just remembering the history of the board. Remember? First all the Christians decided it was unwise to post because they couldn't state one of the basic tenets of their faith. Now I'm a bit afraid to post, because I'm not sure where I'll cross the line. I had to check my favorite hymns for hints of inappropriate content. But agnostics are ideally situated, almost by definition. I could provide links, by date of the various decisions to withdraw, but I don't think I have the patience.

I truly meant no offense. I just wonder about the faith board sometimes.

Dinah

 

Re: newsgroups

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2002, at 22:56:12

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by oracle on November 13, 2002, at 17:02:09

> > > The other advantage of NNTP is it is as old a protocal as any on the web. Every mail reader supports it.
> >
> > Well, that's the other thing, how many people even have a newsreader anymore?
>
> Well, if *every mail reader* supports it, I would think most people have a news reader !

Sorry, missed that sentence, duh! :-)

"Every mail reader" includes Eudora?

> 1) Any browser is a news reader

And every web browser as well as every mail reader?

> 3) Nikki, god forbid you learn anything new from the internet

Please don't imply that someone who has different preferences just hasn't learned as much...

> It has been my experience that any time a good idea is suggested that might mean a slight change there is a big back lash here.

I do think people here (and maybe in general) tend not to like change, but maybe that's just liking stability, or consistency, which I think is natural. And change isn't *necessarily* for the better...

Bob

 

Re: faith board (and books just a little)

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 2002, at 0:28:41

In reply to Re: newsgroups » oracle, posted by Dinah on November 13, 2002, at 22:51:16

> I keep feeling compelled to read the book just so the discussion thread on the book board will be a bit longer.

Thanks! I do think there's even more of a critical mass issue there, since it's like a single-thread board...

> The faith board is so circumscribed that there is little activity on it. I often get the odd idea that those who feel the freest to post on it are the atheists and agnostics, because everyone else is afraid of saying something, well, religious.
>
> Dinah

But of course it's not religiosity per se that's the problem...

----

> I do think it was a cop out on Dr Bob to offer that board. The whole religion issue is a can o worms. Creating a board just the please one person and deal with a problem, I think, is just creating another.

It wasn't just for one person. Faith is important to a lot of people.

> Or to look at it another way, Bob bends over backwards if someone is not well liked and the rest feel short changed.
>
> oracle

So try to like everyone! :-)

----

> agnostics are ideally situated, almost by definition.
>
> Dinah

Hmm... I think I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that's the way it should be -- and I'm sorry if that's the way it's become. I think it should be fine for someone who's agnostic to say that's their belief, but not for them to say that's the only correct belief.

OTOH... another way, and in fact more like the way I originally had in mind, would be to limit PBF to those who do "serve and worship God or the supernatural". Or at least support doing so. Since the idea is after all to be supportive.

What do you all think? I'm leaning that way again...

Someone could still post about a "crisis of faith", they would just be more likely to be encouraged to have faith then not. Someone who was agnostic or atheist could still post about that at PSB. Would this be favoritism? I guess so, but there's a designated board for medication, but not for, say, exercise...

Bob

 

Re: newsgroups, give us the choice?

Posted by bluedog on November 14, 2002, at 1:37:37

In reply to Re: newsgroups, posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2002, at 22:56:12

I still maintain having the newsreader NNTP format as an OPTION would be the way to go.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the grc newsgroups give you the CHOICE whether to access the newsgroups via the web OR via a newsreader.

Wouldn't this keep both groups happy??? (except Jay of course who would miss out on all those cool graphics available at the Rush site , lol )


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.