Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235140 > unrolled thread

web forums and the old hierarchy idea

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  web forums and the old hierarchy idea Mara Vale <mara.vale@example.invalid> - 2026-06-21 12:24 +0000
    Re: web forums and the old hierarchy idea Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-21 14:53 +0100
    Re: web forums and the old hierarchy idea Caffeine Canidae <samuel.common@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-21 23:47 +0000
    Re: web forums and the old hierarchy idea Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2026-06-23 00:03 -0700

#235140 — web forums and the old hierarchy idea

Small web projects keep rediscovering the same thing Usenet already knew:
putting discussion into named places helps people find the right audience.

I have been helping test RootBadger:

https://www.rootbadger.com

It is a web forum with a Usenet-inspired layout. Not a Usenet replacement, and
not pretending to be one. The interesting bit is that it keeps a hierarchy model
instead of a single algorithmic feed. Groups live under rb.* so the names stay
clear: rb.comp for computer topics, rb.rec for hobbies and entertainment, rb.sci
for science, rb.soc and rb.talk for social/political discussion, rb.alt for the
weirder stuff, plus regional and language groups.

There are also some more specific groups already there: Linux, programming,
computer security, privacy, radio, books, science fiction, music, world news,
technology news, cryptids, and a RootBadger operations group for feedback on the
site itself.

The site has a posting-etiquette idea called BurrowCraft. It is mostly old good
sense: write a real subject line, pick the right group, keep replies tied to the
thread, trim quotes, proofread, and make the post useful enough that somebody
can answer it.

That feels like something worth preserving from the older net. If anyone here
likes watching forum designs evolve, I would be curious what you think of the
hierarchy and whether the rb.* names are clear enough.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#235141

On 2026-06-21, Mara Vale wrote:

> Small web projects keep rediscovering the same thing Usenet already knew:
> putting discussion into named places helps people find the right audience.
>
> I have been helping test RootBadger:
>
[...]
> The site has a posting-etiquette idea called BurrowCraft. It is mostly old good
> sense: write a real subject line, pick the right group, keep replies tied to the
> thread, trim quotes, proofread, and make the post useful enough that somebody
> can answer it.

It may make sense to include there "check for similar subjects in the
past few days/weeks" in order to avoid repeating something, and to try
to keep things in a single thread :-P

(cf. <news://news.blueworldhosting.com/1102b55$3h691$1@paganini.bofh.team>)

Does it refer to RFC 1855, BTW?

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235144

Mara Vale wrote:
> Small web projects keep rediscovering the same thing Usenet already knew:
> putting discussion into named places helps people find the right audience.

Community spaces have certainly been shrinking, and boiling down into 
sections of current social media sites, Reddit is by far one of the only 
ones that seems to actually cultivate some smaller communities that 
don't always get sucked into algorithms - but everyone knows they have a 
reputation for a reason...

> It is a web forum with a Usenet-inspired layout. Not a Usenet replacement, and
> not pretending to be one. The interesting bit is that it keeps a hierarchy model
> instead of a single algorithmic feed. Groups live under rb.* so the names stay
> clear: rb.comp for computer topics, rb.rec for hobbies and entertainment, rb.sci
> for science, rb.soc and rb.talk for social/political discussion, rb.alt for the
> weirder stuff, plus regional and language groups
> That feels like something worth preserving from the older net. If anyone here
> likes watching forum designs evolve, I would be curious what you think of the
> hierarchy and whether the rb.* names are clear enough.

Honestly one of the major things that I've noticed the most with using 
Newsgroups and Usenet as a whole is how utterly human it feels, the 
excitement of seeing a new post in your favourite group, reading through 
replies, and seeing actual informational content! Seeing a variety - or 
just seeing the topics you want to see! It's beautiful, I'd never think 
that I'd actually have so much fun reading through pure text.

We're never going to bring back the old net, much to alot of people's 
dismay, but I think we can carry the spirit that it once had - the 
communtities, the user content, a break from the algorithm and the 
never-ending slop that thrives off of selling your data.

I'm glad to see more projects like this cropping up, I'll definitely 
have to check it out!

-- 
- Mokka

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235151

On 6/21/26 5:24 AM, Mara Vale wrote:
> Small web projects keep rediscovering the same thing Usenet already knew:
> putting discussion into named places helps people find the right audience.
> 
> I have been helping test RootBadger:
> 
> https://www.rootbadger.com
> 
> It is a web forum with a Usenet-inspired layout. Not a Usenet replacement, and
> not pretending to be one. The interesting bit is that it keeps a hierarchy model
> instead of a single algorithmic feed. Groups live under rb.* so the names stay
> clear: rb.comp for computer topics, rb.rec for hobbies and entertainment, rb.sci
> for science, rb.soc and rb.talk for social/political discussion, rb.alt for the
> weirder stuff, plus regional and language groups.
> 
> There are also some more specific groups already there: Linux, programming,
> computer security, privacy, radio, books, science fiction, music, world news,
> technology news, cryptids, and a RootBadger operations group for feedback on the
> site itself.
> 
> The site has a posting-etiquette idea called BurrowCraft. It is mostly old good
> sense: write a real subject line, pick the right group, keep replies tied to the
> thread, trim quotes, proofread, and make the post useful enough that somebody
> can answer it.
> 
> That feels like something worth preserving from the older net. If anyone here
> likes watching forum designs evolve, I would be curious what you think of the
> hierarchy and whether the rb.* names are clear enough.

It appears to be missing the ability to expand all posts,
which ought to be the default anyway, like usenet.

The way facebook or reddit does it is exactly what to
avoid, with a click click and click again to read every
little comment in a thread.

Unison, for example, was a formerly functional newsreader
that could display an entire thread with just one click,
I miss using that feature to page or scroll through a
thread.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web