[Wikipedia-l] I like BBS:es

Wed May 7 02:02:00 UTC 2003

Björn-

> Why I prefer BBS:es:

> 1. Discussion is closer to content because both are webbased.

Define "closer"- an "Alt+Tab" gets me to my email client, a "Ctrl+Tab"  
gets me to another browser window. If you use a suite like Mozilla mail  
and web are integrated. You yourself mentioned webmail -- if you want to  
use that, you're free to do so. Ironically, the interface arguments  
against webmail are also applicable to BBS.

> 2. Threads can be followed more easily. There is no way that a
> mailprogam can figure out in which thread this reply belongs to for
> example because I use digest mode.

Sure, but you'd never have something equivalent to digest mode in the  
first place when using a BBS :-). Besides, even if you reply to a digest,  
you should always use the proper subject line -- MIME digests make this  
easy, and may also preserve message references (not sure).

> 3. I can edit my post after it has been written, if that feature is
> desireable. This also means that post publishing moderation will be
> easier which is preferable to prepublishing that a mailinglist requires.

If you want editable comments, use a wiki. Whether post-moderation is  
preferable to pre-moderation is debatable, I for one think the exact  
opposite is the case: Pre-moderation reduces the amount of unnecessary  
content members are exposed to, and also the amount of public discussion  
about the moderation.

> 4. How does this look?:

[crapquote snipped]

Highly nested quotes always get ugly, no matter which quoting system you  
use. Yes, many mail clients unfortunately do not follow standards, esp. MS  
Outlook. But you get the same phenomenon with BBS: Users will quote in  
different styles, some using the built in quoting mechanism, others  
quoting manually, others not at all. Mix those and it gets ugly -- I've  
seen it.

> 5. From time to time there comes someone who replies to the whole digest
> without deleting anything.

Users acting stupidly is a problem you will have with any system. If you  
want to avoid digest-associated nuisances, disable digest delivery.

> 6. I dont have to read "Do you have Yahoo?" 2,000,000 times.

Ignore it, or write a filter. It's just plaintext -- I could care less.  
Those annoying Flash banners on some bulletin boards, on the other hand ..

> 7. Many users use the Internet at work or school where they dont have
> access to mail only to the web.

If you have access to the web, you have access to mail. If you have access  
to the machine, you have access to an email client.

> 8. Using webmail like Hotmail is not fun to read mailinglists on. Your
> mailbox fills up with spam instantly

Depends on the freemail provider used. I have used GMX for ages without  
getting spam. My regular home mail account on the other hand is full of  
spam. But there are filters for these things, whereas a BBS hardly  
provides any filtering options.

>  and the interfaces are usually very
> cumbersome.

See above -- don't want a web interface? Don't use it.

> 9. Because I can write down all the e-mailadresses i get from the list
> and spam you with penis-enlargements. Bush could easily track all Afgan
> terrorists on this list down if he wanted to - would be much harder on a
> BBS.

Spam is a real problem, I will give you that. Fortunately, filters like  
spamassassin are getting better, and most mailing list archives now hide  
email addresses to prevent harvesting. Harvesting by spam-subscribers  
might happen in the future, though.

> 10. I have to wait a day for new letters to arrive because I use digest
> mode and if I dont my mailbox will get clogged.

"Get clogged"? POP3 mailboxes are limited by space, not by
# of messages. Use filters, file to folders. Two clicks in a decent mail  
client.

> 11. When many topics is discussed simultaneously it becomes very hard to
> follow the threads on a list. Not so on a BBS.

Again, use your mail client properly. If you like to have all messages in  
a digest with no sorting or threading, then that's your choice.

> 12. Mentioning offsite mailarchives is out of question imho. No sane
> person should need to or want to use that.

Huh?!

> 13. No bold or italic style.

*Are* you _sure_? Lack of "advanced" formatting tends to be an advantage  
for high signal discussions. Check out the few messages that actually use  
HTML and you see what I mean. I refer you to my comment regarding animated  
smileys with beer kegs on bulletin boards.

> I for one would love to have some kind of messageboard instead of an
> antique mailingsystem. Both the mailinglist and the talk-pages are so
> cumbersome, there should be an EASY way to discuss!

Learn to use the technology you own, and you may find that it is much more  
advanced than you think. Email has evolved over the last decades.

> And usually; Mailinglist = intelligent,
> low traffic BBS = dumb, high traffic and thats also something to consider.
> I think its the way of the future.

You think that "dumb, high traffic" is the way of the future? I think I'll  
pass.

Regards,

Erik