Can you write up a précis on the nature of slrn and trn for the benefit of the post-September crowd? Edit: I think it might be difficult to appreciate the suggestion not knowing how it will work.
The main reading screen in trn had a two dimensional graph of the thread at the top of the screen (one node per reply) which you could navigate with the arrow keys—easily going to the parent post, the first reply post, or the next or previous reply to the same parent post. There were keys to move up & down a page or a line of the current post. Space moved you to the next page of a post, or if you were at the end, on to the next unread post/reply, in thread order. Multipage posts were marked as read only once you’d got to the bottom. There was another key to mark them unread, or to skip the current item without having to read all the way to the bottom. The top level post in a thread was technically similar to the replies, unlike the blogging distinction between articles and comments.
There was a previous screen where you could select which threads to view, they could be listed one per line (lots of other options too).
You could enter commands to select or skip posts matching a subject or author, and if desired, everything underneath them in the tree. You could save these commands to run every time.
The parts about being able to see the structure of the thread at a glance and being able to quickly glance over a list of threads to see what’s interesting sound a lot like why I like Bungie.org’s WebBBS forums so much. At B.org I can say “This branch looks dumb” and immediately skip to the next one; at LW I often have to scroll through posts one at a time to find the end of a branch, and I often just give up.
Thanks; I’ll probably start using that. That can still “[leave] an interesting thread at the mercy of its ancestors”, though, which I don’t think WebBBS or (apparently) trn does.
slrn and trn had some nice features, but I think overall the benefit from the Usenet model is that it decoupled the presentation and user interaction, which was done by decentralized clients, with the storage and propagation, done by decentralized servers. The fact that the clients could evolve independently really let them become very good at what they did, rather than the “almost good enough” of most web discussions.
I, also, miss the decoupling you mention. On the other hand, the user interface design has influence on the community by way of what-is-visible and the length of wieldy posts; e.g. mail/Usenet encourage long posts with quoting.
I suspect such systems were most effective in a techie society like the old USENET, but I could imagine it might be done still. There should still be a browser interface, however.
Thank you for asking. I’ve been complaining about how much better trn was for years (and, more recently, saying that JavaScript would make browser-based trn possible), and no one had ever asked for the details.
Can you write up a précis on the nature of slrn and trn for the benefit of the post-September crowd? Edit: I think it might be difficult to appreciate the suggestion not knowing how it will work.
The main reading screen in trn had a two dimensional graph of the thread at the top of the screen (one node per reply) which you could navigate with the arrow keys—easily going to the parent post, the first reply post, or the next or previous reply to the same parent post. There were keys to move up & down a page or a line of the current post. Space moved you to the next page of a post, or if you were at the end, on to the next unread post/reply, in thread order. Multipage posts were marked as read only once you’d got to the bottom. There was another key to mark them unread, or to skip the current item without having to read all the way to the bottom. The top level post in a thread was technically similar to the replies, unlike the blogging distinction between articles and comments.
There was a previous screen where you could select which threads to view, they could be listed one per line (lots of other options too).
You could enter commands to select or skip posts matching a subject or author, and if desired, everything underneath them in the tree. You could save these commands to run every time.
The parts about being able to see the structure of the thread at a glance and being able to quickly glance over a list of threads to see what’s interesting sound a lot like why I like Bungie.org’s WebBBS forums so much. At B.org I can say “This branch looks dumb” and immediately skip to the next one; at LW I often have to scroll through posts one at a time to find the end of a branch, and I often just give up.
You can click the “[-]” link at the top of any comment to hide it and all its replies.
Thanks; I’ll probably start using that. That can still “[leave] an interesting thread at the mercy of its ancestors”, though, which I don’t think WebBBS or (apparently) trn does.
That does sound like a better user interface.
slrn and trn had some nice features, but I think overall the benefit from the Usenet model is that it decoupled the presentation and user interaction, which was done by decentralized clients, with the storage and propagation, done by decentralized servers. The fact that the clients could evolve independently really let them become very good at what they did, rather than the “almost good enough” of most web discussions.
I, also, miss the decoupling you mention. On the other hand, the user interface design has influence on the community by way of what-is-visible and the length of wieldy posts; e.g. mail/Usenet encourage long posts with quoting.
I suspect such systems were most effective in a techie society like the old USENET, but I could imagine it might be done still. There should still be a browser interface, however.
Thank you for asking. I’ve been complaining about how much better trn was for years (and, more recently, saying that JavaScript would make browser-based trn possible), and no one had ever asked for the details.
My brother rediscovered USENET not long ago, and had been much impressed, so...