Dang, I hate it when I hit "submit" intending to press "preview."
Continuing my rant: Software counts. Software implements the organizational metaphor. The medium is the message, and all that. Most of the Web-based discussion software is horrid.
Take Slashdot, for example. It's a moderated annotation system, not a discussion system. Does anybody really come back and read after they've posted? Maybe a couple of diehards, but fundamentally this is a rant-and-run environment. It works very well for its intended purpose, but it's not a discussion system.
The trouble is that most of the packages that pretend to be discussion systems have no more thought applied to sustaining discussion than Slashdot. Sustained discussion requires a primarily linear flow. Most Web boards are built with too much threading, too many decorations, and not enough productive features (such as keeping track of which messages I've already read).
Well, I never did find much commentary about BBSing in the 612 area code, but I have to point out that there is more local activity today on the Star Tribune's "Talk" service than ever existed in the combined user bases of all the 612-area BBSes in the days of the Computer User list.
I ran one of those old-style BBSes (The Lake), and later I built the Star Tribune's Web site (I was the editor). I made certain that startribune.com had a community focus and the Web-based discussion tools to do it right.
Of course BBS-like communities still exist; they're just on the Web now. If they're badly implemented on the Web and you're moping for the past, then the likelihood is that you're suffering from selective memory.
Most of the BBSes in the 1980s were twirly-cursor ruggie havens not worth the time it took to dial the number. It shouldn't be surprising that most of the Web-based "communities" suck. It's the rare gems that stand out in your memory.
Take a look at some of these:
Talk to Tom with restaurant critic Tom Fitzmorris in New Orleans. Food is a big deal in New Orleans. InsideNewOrleans.com has assembled a very active, very local, very focused community around eating.
Backfence with James Lileks, a newspaper columnist with the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. His column is spun out of contributions from his message boards. He's built his own tight community within the newspaper's "Talk" service, which has something on the order of 30,000 registered users.
Cyberspace Cafe & Pub, a meandering discussion that began in 1994 or so on the proprietary Interchange network and migrated to the Web in 1995. Don't be fooled by the message count (around 5800); this has "rolled over" half a dozen times.
Cafe Utne, operated by the Utne Reader, sort of a Reader's Digest of "alternative" publications. If you're wondering where all the '60s liberals went, this is it.
Table Talk,, the message boards of the Web-based Salon magazine.
I would not be one to ignore the wishes of the users, but my experience has been that the essentially linear organizational model used by Web Crossing (and the Well, and Motet, and the Citadel BBSes) generally leads to more intelligent sustained conversation than organizational models that encourage branching.
Threaded systems -- and Slashdot is one -- are good for post-and-response environments. You can see how that shapes the conversation here. It's great for Q&A, far superior to linear or room-based conversations, but interactions tend to burn out fairly quickly.
So I think a decision on Web-based conferencing software turns on your goals. If you're trying to build a very tight community where the users really get to know one another, the linear model is superior. If you're putting the Pet Vet online for questions and answers, a threaded model works better.
The best compromise I've seen was the proprietary Interchange system, developed by Ziff-Davis in 1993-1995. Its discussion model was fundamentally linear but allowed for easy branching, either at the decision of a participant or through action by a sysop. That helped to sustain a focused conversation while accommodating the reality of topic drift and tangental responses.
Whatever you do, demand that your software keep track of what the user has already seen. It's sad that so many "commercial" packages these days can't match the basic functionality that Fido bulletin boards provided back in the dark ages.
>>... which it certainly couldn't this time last year.
Not true. BW is a commercial service that distributes unedited press releases. Excite runs all of the BW content. (It may be crap, or it may not... that's for the audience to decide. Investors find press releases, however self-serving, to be useful.)
The avenue has always been open to Linux. All it takes is a public-relations department. This is not a case of Linux becoming important enough for the general media to cover; it is a case of a Linux company becoming sufficiently aware of How Things Work to get the word out through commonly available channels.
Yes. Prestel predated Prodigy by several years, as did Minitel.
Prodigy wasn't the first online service, nor was it the first graphical service. It wasn't even the first big-bucks, corporate-America attempt to build a commercial/consumer U.S. online service. (Knight Ridder lost something like 50 million dollars on Viewtron long before CBS/IBM/Sears started working on Prodigy.)
Traditional information flows will change, but traditional information sources will not disappear.
Not so fast.
You're absolutely right that./ and FR are filtering mechanisms and do not begin to encompass the whole process of journalism, which is built on a great deal of generally unappreciated shoe leather and sweat. The community filters don't do the grunt work of uncovering, investigating, reporting the news. They're getting a free ride on the sweat equity created by the traditional news sources. Taken apart, they don't really threaten traditional news sources.
But the traditional news sources -- particularly local newspapers, where a great deal of wire news really originates -- are in serious economic jeopardy due to the macro effects of the Internet on commerce, vicious new competitors in key market segments (such as classified advertising), and major shifts in audience attention.
There's a good piece on this in the Economist this week.
By the way, I think Matthew Priestley's analysis of the relative economic value of readers and advertisers is flawed and shortsighted, but the piece raises some serious issues and I'm passing the URL along to some colleagues.
Sorry about the tardiness of this reply; I have been vacationing in southwest England.
I would certainly agree that traditional media, in general, do a terrible job of performing as a trusted guide -- which is exactly why I issued that challenge. If you'll read the speech you'll see that I talk about public service in the literal sense (not the ego-journalism that passes for public service in most organizations).
-- Steve Yelvington editor and Linux user since 0.96 or so
Slashdot Mirror
See also:
citadel.org
isca bbs, U of Iowa
Dang, I hate it when I hit "submit" intending to press "preview."
Continuing my rant: Software counts. Software implements the organizational metaphor. The medium is the message, and all that. Most of the Web-based discussion software is horrid.
Take Slashdot, for example. It's a moderated annotation system, not a discussion system. Does anybody really come back and read after they've posted? Maybe a couple of diehards, but fundamentally this is a rant-and-run environment. It works very well for its intended purpose, but it's not a discussion system.
The trouble is that most of the packages that pretend to be discussion systems have no more thought applied to sustaining discussion than Slashdot. Sustained discussion requires a primarily linear flow. Most Web boards are built with too much threading, too many decorations, and not enough productive features (such as keeping track of which messages I've already read).
Well, I never did find much commentary about BBSing in the 612 area code, but I have to point out that there is more local activity today on the Star Tribune's "Talk" service than ever existed in the combined user bases of all the 612-area BBSes in the days of the Computer User list.
I ran one of those old-style BBSes (The Lake), and later I built the Star Tribune's Web site (I was the editor). I made certain that startribune.com had a community focus and the Web-based discussion tools to do it right.
Most of the BBSes in the 1980s were twirly-cursor ruggie havens not worth the time it took to dial the number. It shouldn't be surprising that most of the Web-based "communities" suck. It's the rare gems that stand out in your memory.
Take a look at some of these:
Talk to Tom with restaurant critic Tom Fitzmorris in New Orleans. Food is a big deal in New Orleans. InsideNewOrleans.com has assembled a very active, very local, very focused community around eating.
Backfence with James Lileks, a newspaper columnist with the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. His column is spun out of contributions from his message boards. He's built his own tight community within the newspaper's "Talk" service, which has something on the order of 30,000 registered users.
Cyberspace Cafe & Pub, a meandering discussion that began in 1994 or so on the proprietary Interchange network and migrated to the Web in 1995. Don't be fooled by the message count (around 5800); this has "rolled over" half a dozen times.
Cafe Utne, operated by the Utne Reader, sort of a Reader's Digest of "alternative" publications. If you're wondering where all the '60s liberals went, this is it.
Table Talk,, the message boards of the Web-based Salon magazine.
I would not be one to ignore the wishes of the users, but my experience has been that the essentially linear organizational model used by Web Crossing (and the Well, and Motet, and the Citadel BBSes) generally leads to more intelligent sustained conversation than organizational models that encourage branching.
Threaded systems -- and Slashdot is one -- are good for post-and-response environments. You can see how that shapes the conversation here. It's great for Q&A, far superior to linear or room-based conversations, but interactions tend to burn out fairly quickly.
So I think a decision on Web-based conferencing software turns on your goals. If you're trying to build a very tight community where the users really get to know one another, the linear model is superior. If you're putting the Pet Vet online for questions and answers, a threaded model works better.
The best compromise I've seen was the proprietary Interchange system, developed by Ziff-Davis in 1993-1995. Its discussion model was fundamentally linear but allowed for easy branching, either at the decision of a participant or through action by a sysop. That helped to sustain a focused conversation while accommodating the reality of topic drift and tangental responses.
Whatever you do, demand that your software keep track of what the user has already seen. It's sad that so many "commercial" packages these days can't match the basic functionality that Fido bulletin boards provided back in the dark ages.
>>...
... that's for the audience to decide. Investors find press releases, however self-serving, to be useful.)
which it certainly couldn't this time last year.
Not true. BW is a commercial service that distributes unedited press releases. Excite runs all of the BW content. (It may be crap, or it may not
The avenue has always been open to Linux. All it takes is a public-relations department. This is not a case of Linux becoming important enough for the general media to cover; it is a case of a Linux company becoming sufficiently aware of How Things Work to get the word out through commonly available channels.
Yes. Prestel predated Prodigy by several years, as did Minitel.
Prodigy wasn't the first online service, nor was it the first graphical service. It wasn't even the first big-bucks, corporate-America attempt to build a commercial/consumer U.S. online service. (Knight Ridder lost something like 50 million dollars on Viewtron long before CBS/IBM/Sears started working on Prodigy.)
Not so fast.
You're absolutely right that ./ and FR are filtering mechanisms and do not begin to encompass the whole process of journalism, which is built on a great deal of generally unappreciated shoe leather and sweat. The community filters don't do the grunt work of uncovering, investigating, reporting the news. They're getting a free ride on the sweat equity created by the traditional news sources. Taken apart, they don't really threaten traditional news sources.
But the traditional news sources -- particularly local newspapers, where a great deal of wire news really originates -- are in serious economic jeopardy due to the macro effects of the Internet on commerce, vicious new competitors in key market segments (such as classified advertising), and major shifts in audience attention.
There's a good piece on this in the Economist this week.
By the way, I think Matthew Priestley's analysis of the relative economic value of readers and advertisers is flawed and shortsighted, but the piece raises some serious issues and I'm passing the URL along to some colleagues.
Here is where you'll find it.
Sorry about the tardiness of this reply; I have been vacationing in southwest England.
I would certainly agree that traditional media, in general, do a terrible job of performing as a trusted guide -- which is exactly why I issued that challenge. If you'll read the speech you'll see that I talk about public service in the literal sense (not the ego-journalism that passes for public service in most organizations).
-- Steve Yelvington
editor and Linux user since 0.96 or so