On 2/25/25 7:15 AM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:

"Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older
data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't
want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from
using the old Usenet to continue doing so.

Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/

The source for this appears to be here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40868924

I question the author's premise that "you can't just host your own
server" and I wonder if the author doesn't fully understand the Usenet
and Big-8 concepts; that it isn't necessary for any server to accept
binary material.

Author acknowledges possible ignorance on the subject in this followup
reply, dated 7 months ago:

"I guess what I mean is, there is a lot of things that Usenet does
because back in the 90's we didn't have a lot of the technology we have
today. Today there are more solutions then there was which means Usenet
doesn't need to be the host for things like binaries, and the like,
which tend to be most of the storage consumption problems that would
keep people from self-hosting on the existing network. If we started
over, not utilizing binary storage and a few other things, would that
not make Usenet a better service with less storage requirements? Or am I
just missing it completely?"

***

Question for Paul Schleck: what was your interpretation or opinion of
this author's writing, and his knowledge of Usenet?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 18:46:50 -0600, Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:

Retro Guy wrote:

Also, I don't know why someone is posting short quotes, not opinion on the >> quote, and links to Reddit. I, and I'm guessing some others, are not going >> to visit Reddit to read the info.

This is an example of the opinion that re-posts of material from other >sources (mailing lists, newsletters, social media) will revive a
newsgroup. If your newsgroup is dying, you can revive it by posting
material from other sources. You have to admit that the article that
you are disparaging has resulted in a flurry of activity in the target >newsgroups.
I am not personally a fan of this technique. My impression is that you
end up with low-quality traffic that does not result in any followups in
the newsgroup, to the point where the group becomes an echo of material >available elsewhere. Is there value in consolidating information from
several sources into one place? Perhaps, but I prefer to go to the
source and not be dependent on someone else to choose what I read.

recent posts about "fleeing redditors", "fediverse nntp", and constant cross-posting of mainstream news links, suggests that at least some of
these web-based forums may be experiencing a decline in subscribership
or active contributors ... but, as with usenet, lurkers are the silent majority, so there probably are many more readers than participants in
any of these virtual communities ... usenet is in its forty-fifth year (thirtieth year since the eternal september troll farm was established)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/28/25 6:46 PM, Steve Bonine wrote:

Retro Guy wrote:

Also, I don't know why someone is posting short quotes, not opinion on
the
quote, and links to Reddit. I, and I'm guessing some others, are not
going
to visit Reddit to read the info.

This is an example of the opinion that re-posts of material from other sources (mailing lists, newsletters, social media) will revive a
newsgroup.  If your newsgroup is dying, you can revive it by posting material from other sources.  You have to admit that the article that
you are disparaging has resulted in a flurry of activity in the target newsgroups.

I am not personally a fan of this technique.  My impression is that you
end up with low-quality traffic that does not result in any followups in
the newsgroup, [...]

The main problem with this particular case of re-posted material is the
low quality of the material to begin with. It was someone's uninformed
opinion and musing about Usenet. It was from a person who was unfamiliar
with the operation of Usenet, as particularly evidenced by the phrase
"you can't just host your own server."

I question what value Paul Schleck saw in reposting this uninformed or
ignorant material to the newsgroups. Was it to inform the readers here?
Was it to entertain us? Or was it for his own entertainment, to read our replies for the past several days?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 08:32:46 -0600, D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> wrote:

On 2/28/25 6:46 PM, Steve Bonine wrote:

Retro Guy wrote:

Also, I don't know why someone is posting short quotes, not opinion on
the
quote, and links to Reddit. I, and I'm guessing some others, are not
going
to visit Reddit to read the info.

This is an example of the opinion that re-posts of material from other
sources (mailing lists, newsletters, social media) will revive a
newsgroup.  If your newsgroup is dying, you can revive it by posting
material from other sources.  You have to admit that the article that
you are disparaging has resulted in a flurry of activity in the target
newsgroups.
I am not personally a fan of this technique.  My impression is that you
end up with low-quality traffic that does not result in any followups in
the newsgroup, [...]

The main problem with this particular case of re-posted material is the
low quality of the material to begin with. It was someone's uninformed >opinion and musing about Usenet. It was from a person who was unfamiliar
with the operation of Usenet, as particularly evidenced by the phrase
"you can't just host your own server."
I question what value Paul Schleck saw in reposting this uninformed or >ignorant material to the newsgroups. Was it to inform the readers here?
Was it to entertain us? Or was it for his own entertainment, to read our >replies for the past several days?

some of the articles cited in pws's cross-postings have been interesting
and on-topic, "early history of usenet" <ulmoq1$6kl$1@reader2.panix.com>
(links to https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/blog/2019-11/2019-11-14.html) organized, authoritative, self-explanatory albeit biased and opinionated

but posting links to "reddit" or other social media to usenet newsgroups
seems more like unsolicited advertising . . . junk mail, of little or no
use to anyone...pws may not be troll farm, but shilling for social media?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:42:46 -0000 (UTC), pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:

In <vq4eie$1bg77$1@dont-email.me> D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:

I question what value Paul Schleck saw in reposting this uninformed or >>ignorant material to the newsgroups. Was it to inform the readers here?
Was it to entertain us? Or was it for his own entertainment, to read our >>replies for the past several days?

(https://groups.google.com/g/news.groups/c/FUdBxpDF_a4/m/mxxyQbk2rrkJ)

when quoting usenet articles, it's always best to include the message id,
as in this instance <10uljd368apu23@corp.supernews.com>; good netiquette includes proper citations, which for usenet articles requires message id
so that anyone reading can verify the source by searching their archives

posting "google groups" links is in especially poor taste . . . at least
use a more reputable link, e.g. https://newsgrouper.org/, which is using blueworld's nntp server . . . or this popular website, for a direct link: http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<10uljd368apu23@corp.supernews.com>

servers should have disabled cross-posting (/^newsgroups:.*,/ => delete)
before the eternal september fiasco turned usenet into trollfarm central

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/3/25 6:42 PM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:

In <vq4eie$1bg77$1@dont-email.me> D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:

I question what value Paul Schleck saw in reposting this uninformed or
ignorant material to the newsgroups. Was it to inform the readers here?
Was it to entertain us? Or was it for his own entertainment, to read our
replies for the past several days?

A pearl of wisdom from Guy Macon from 2005:

[...]

What doesn't work: Responding to articles that you dislike, complaining
about articles that you dislike, complaining about posters that you
dislike, complaining about how terrible everyone else is for not posting
what you want them to post."

Well I admit that this isn't a moderated group and I'm not a moderator
here! :-D

I don't condemn or criticize posting articles or summaries for us to
discuss, so long as they're interesting or informational or what have
you. :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)