"Rob" wrote in message
...

"SatNav" wrote in message
...

"Kegs" wrote in message
...
"SatNav" writes:

"MatSav" m a t t h e w D O T s a v a g e A T d s l D O T p i p e x D
OT c o
m wrote in message ...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:43:42 +0100, JH
wrote:

Does anything ever happen in this group, or are you all down with Davy
Jones?

Discussion has migrated to url:http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk


The above fake little dialogue is designed to divert gullible usenet
users
to a commercial page.

Bing! Wrong, UKRGB is a free site, with free discussion boards, and
free access to the river guides, which are contributed by the
readership.

Ads and selling stuff like t-shirts are about the only ways to pay for
the, non-negligable, overheads of running a popular site like that,
without
directly charging the end-users.


My point precisely, UKRGB depends on advertising revenue to keep going.
You know what happens when your website depends financially on someone?

Even if they don't overtly call the shots, you make sure you don't upset
them. Freedom of speech goes out the window etc. etc.

This by contrast is a free AND independent NG. I regret if people post
here, announcing that 'discussion has migrated' to a commercially funded
web site.

The motivation is obvious - adverts fetch more the more hits your site
gets.

That'll explain way UKRGB doesnt actually charge for its ads then. Always
worth getting the facts right.

Well I _am_ confused now ... 'Kegs' reckons UKRGB uses advertising income
'to pay for the, non-negligable, overheads'.

'Rob' states that 'UKRGB doesn't actually charge for its ads' at all. Now
that sounds seriously bizarre, like someone afraid of the tax man, or
understandably squeamish about commercially exploiting the site's
intellectual property, or both.

Makes you wonder why they bother with ads then? As some sort of eye candy
from hell?

And who decides which banner ads appear on page 1? With paddle sports being
a multi-million pound market, and with 3000 alleged subscriptions to UKRGB
I'd be in there like a shot.

Come to think of it, I may place an ad on UKRGB meself:

'Like your Whiskey straight and your paddle sports discussions independent?
The discussion has migrated to uk.rec.boats.paddle'

(OK OK I won't give up the day job)

"SatNav" wrote in message
...
(Massive snip to reduce the length repeat of discussion - not an issue with
Forums, but clealry a problem with Usenet)
Well I _am_ confused now ... 'Kegs' reckons UKRGB uses advertising income
'to pay for the, non-negligable, overheads'.

Yes he does - but he's wrong. A reasonable assumption, but unsubstantiated.

'Rob' states that 'UKRGB doesn't actually charge for its ads' at all. Now
that sounds seriously bizarre, like someone afraid of the tax man, or
understandably squeamish about commercially exploiting the site's
intellectual property, or both.

Makes you wonder why they bother with ads then? As some sort of eye candy
from hell?

But the answer is here, on this very Usenet thingie - you'll have read the
detailed explanation by southoftheriver - 24/10/2005 - 21:59?? I cannot
comment on the motivation of the person concerned, I've never met him, but
it seems honourable enough to me. There are still people who just genuinley
want to do something for the general good, beleive it or not.

And who decides which banner ads appear on page 1? With paddle sports
being a multi-million pound market, and with 3000 alleged subscriptions to
UKRGB I'd be in there like a shot.

Subscriptions? That suggests "cost" / charges - there are 3000 "registered
users".

Come to think of it, I may place an ad on UKRGB meself:

You can always ask.

'Like your Whiskey straight and your paddle sports discussions
independent? The discussion has migrated to uk.rec.boats.paddle'

(OK OK I won't give up the day job)

Indeed.

Rob wrote:

Some people still like and enjoy steam engines - most of us drive somethinga
little more modern.

Where in this particular case the "more modern" is more awkward to use,
slower and generally more crap. Sort of a Thamslink Trains vs. the
Brighton Belle... "more modern" and "more fashionable" is not
necessarily better.

The easiest way to demonstrate the superiority of usenet over any web
forum I've yet seen is look at uk.rec.cycling through a news feed and
through the web interface cyclingforums have put onto the newsfeed to
present the same posts.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Rob wrote:

Some people still like and enjoy steam engines - most of us drive
somethinga little more modern.

Where in this particular case the "more modern" is more awkward to use,
slower and generally more crap. Sort of a Thamslink Trains vs. the
Brighton Belle... "more modern" and "more fashionable" is not necessarily
better.

The easiest way to demonstrate the superiority of usenet over any web
forum I've yet seen is look at uk.rec.cycling through a news feed and
through the web interface cyclingforums have put onto the newsfeed to
present the same posts.

Ok, fair comment - fact remains though that the numbers speak for
themselves, and relative (real or perceived) ease of use wins every time.
Just look at the traffic here in comparison to (for example) UKRGB's forum -
it can't all be because of the history here.

Rob wrote:

Ok, fair comment - fact remains though that the numbers speak for
themselves, and relative (real or perceived) ease of use wins every time.
Just look at the traffic here in comparison to (for example) UKRGB's forum -
it can't all be because of the history here.

It's not ease of use, it's knowledge of existence! Almost all of it
will be that everyone knows about the Web and relatively few people know
about usenet. Does that mean we should actively abandon the better
medium, or encourage people to use it?

I'd say the latter, and if you really don't want to listen to Allan (or
me, or anyone else) all you have to do is amend your killfile: it's not
rocket science (and it isn't easily possible on web forums either!)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Rob wrote:

Ok, fair comment - fact remains though that the numbers speak for
themselves, and relative (real or perceived) ease of use wins every time.
Just look at the traffic here in comparison to (for example) UKRGB's
forum - it can't all be because of the history here.

It's not ease of use, it's knowledge of existence! Almost all of it will
be that everyone knows about the Web and relatively few people know about
usenet. Does that mean we should actively abandon the better medium, or
encourage people to use it?

I remain to be convinced it's the "better medium" - it has it's place - but
it lacks a number of the features and benefits of a web based forum, notably
images. That said, I use a lot of usenet accounts. And very helpful they can
be. The ability to search the vast knowledge base via Google Groups is
certainly a massive and valuable resource, and generally easier to do than
within a web forum.

I'd say the latter, and if you really don't want to listen to Allan (or
me, or anyone else) all you have to do is amend your killfile: it's not
rocket science (and it isn't easily possible on web forums either!)

Ah yes - killfiles. While I accept your argument that its not rocket
science, it's not all that simple as you know. The perpertrators just pop up
in someones reply. There is of course the addition of the Usenet "Police"
who insist on telling people what they can, and cannot do - how they should
post, in what format - to snip or not, etc ad infinitum. Please lets not
start another boring and tedious top-posting / bottom posting debate, but
you'll have to agree there is rather less pedantry on most web forums.

In message
Peter Clinch wrote:

Rob wrote:

Some people still like and enjoy steam engines - most of us drive somethinga
little more modern.

Where in this particular case the "more modern" is more awkward to use,
slower and generally more crap. Sort of a Thamslink Trains vs. the
Brighton Belle... "more modern" and "more fashionable" is not
necessarily better.

The easiest way to demonstrate the superiority of usenet over any web
forum I've yet seen is look at uk.rec.cycling through a news feed and
through the web interface cyclingforums have put onto the newsfeed to
present the same posts.

The big difference for me is that when I've read a news post I click the
right arrow key and the next post appears immediately. When I do whatever
the equivalent on a forum is I have to wait while the page is fetched. It
might be a small delay, as I'm on 2M broadband, but multiply it by a
hundred or so - each day - and you see why I don't bother with the forum
format.

Incidentally I think that the biggest problem is that with any really
informative message, by the time you've read it, the next button has
scrolled off the top of the screen, so instead of one key to move on you
have to scroll up or down (and remember which one it is on this particular
forum), find the button click - wait - wait - and then find that it's
something you are not interested in, and repeat the process for the next.

Oh, and did I mention font sizes and colours that don't produce easily read
text - in a newsreader I control the font, and colour scheme, to one that I
want to read. Until CSS2 becomes universal and browsers really allow you to
override elements of the CSS, instead of the current only option of
disabling it completely, I prefer to be in control.

Sorry, a decent newsreader makes handling this sort of thing fast, easy and
comfortable.

Maybe the problem is that people don't have newsreaders.

Alan

--
Alan Adams

http://www.nckc.org.uk/

Alan Adams wrote:

Maybe the problem is that people don't have newsreaders.

Alan
I think the problem is that many people don't know what a newsgroup is !


--
Muzz
send mail to

"Alan Adams" wrote in message
...

Maybe the problem is that people don't have newsreaders.

Alan


I use outlook express - don't /most/ people have this?

Keith

"Keith Meredith" writes:

"Alan Adams" wrote in message
...

Maybe the problem is that people don't have newsreaders.

I use outlook express - don't /most/ people have this?

Leaving aside the issues of using outlook express as a usenet client[1].

Mainly I suspect it is because ISPs don't advertise the fact that
they have an nntp server, even if they do have one. AOL don't even
run a usenet service anymore. If people don't know they have access
to a service they will assume that they either don't have access, or
that they will have to pay for access, so they don't bother.[2]

The other thing is that as the wonderful whizzy world of the web gets all
the attention these days, some the other less glamourous parts of the
internet get correspondingly less attention, so people don't even know they
are there.

Doesn't help that it is slightly more complex to configure usenet
access than it is to configure someother things.

[1] It does, if you have nothing better, but there are better clients
available for free (ditto oe for email).

[2] Did that make sense? it has been a long day.

--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk

"Boom. Boom boom boom. Boom boom. Boom! Have a nice day."
(Lt. Cmdr. Ivanova, B5)