From: Minkoo Seo <minkoo.seo@...>
Date: 2006-05-04T05:24:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Re-post:

------=_Part_1337_18235901.1146687886152
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I do not believe web based interface makes the level of discussion low.
Take comp.lang.c++.modreated and comp.programming.threads as
examples. Two of them are filled with discussion of detailed/professional
discussion on C++ and concurrency, respectively. However, both of
them are exposed to the public via groups.google.com.

The quality of comp.lang.c++.moderated is maintained by moderators
who examine all the messages and approves them only if they are not
too novice questions. Sometimes, a moderator directly answer to the
question via email before they filter the message. This can be done
because there are many other places where novice can ask anything.
Such atmosphere of them are maintained not because of the absence
of web-based interface, but because of process.

This is the list which is just named ruby-talk. It's not named like
'ruby-master'
or something like that. Not having web based interface does not guarantee
the
quality of discussion, I believe. Why don't you let people access all the
messages
in the mailing list? Why should we have to raise the bar to newbies
(which includes me) anyway?

Actually, I've joined mailing list when I've found out that ruby-forum does
not work
(I know it runs well right now), but I found not too much difference in thi=
s
list.
People in comp.lang.ruby are discussing some ruby questions on APIs, bugs,
how-to. Messages in this is not radically different from them.

I mean, what is quality anyway? I believe it might be something too
subjective.

Sincerely,
Minkoo Seo

On 5/4/06, Nathan Olberding <nathan.olberding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > I do *not* think that it is sufficiently clear; someone noted that
> > they were surprised to learn that the forum was actually tied to a
> > mailing list *in this very thread*.
>
> That was me. After my first couple of posts, I thought it prudent to
> treat this forum like a mailing list. Everyone else seemed to. It would
> at least help somewhat if it was insinuated somewhere on the forum that
> this is cross-posted to a mailing list.
>
> > The web interface is reducing the quality of discussion dramatically,
> > and merely increasing the warning level is not going to help that.
>
> Help? Yes it would. Solve? Well...
>
> > The
> > style of discussion on fora is too radically different for the way
> > that ruby-talk is presented on ruby-forum. Something different needs
> > to be done, because what exists is detrimental to the community.
>
> Is it really detrimental?
>
> I think I see a little class separation going on here. I'm a newbie to
> Ruby. I'm not incompetent, but I do often ask question that "could be
> answered with a 3 second Google search"... if I only knew what on earth
> I was searching for. It may be obvious to one person, but otherworldly
> to someone who's just encountering a gotcha for the first time.
>
> I've really loved ruby-forum.com since I started using it. People are
> VERY friendly, understanding, patient, and have all the answers to all
> my questions. Excellent community, excellent dialog.
>
> I'm not sure it'd be a good idea, but to keep n00bz like me from
> drowning the pro discussions, maybe we should have a "basic Ruby
> concepts that even experienced developers from other languages might
> snag on" forum. 90% of my questions are in regards to Ruby's
> implementation of common features. I see a lot of people with similar
> questions.
>
> In any event, it's dangerous to have a web site with a forum labeled
> simply "Ruby." Everyone will flock to this :-)
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>

------=_Part_1337_18235901.1146687886152--