Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam
-
@JaredBusch he misread a lot of things...
thanks for catching one!i would love to know how much things we all misread in this fashion, just plain wrong...
anyway, not only i'm not a dev there, i dropped it as a user because of jeff and all the disco censoring happening there.
it's all documented somewhere under the daily fuck (you must know this guys), and one day i'll write (and edit) more about it. cregox.net/discourse
-
@JaredBusch said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
@scottalanmiller said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
@cregox said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
Sorry if I cite them a lot, but I really love the job being done there.
Aren't you a dev there? They list your avatar on their dev list.
No they don’t. You misread that page
Yeah, someone sent that to me and I didn't read it closely enough. I apologize.
-
@cregox said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
@JaredBusch he misread a lot of things...
thanks for catching one!i would love to know how much things we all misread in this fashion, just plain wrong...
anyway, not only i'm not a dev there, i dropped it as a user because of jeff and all the disco censoring happening there.
it's all documented somewhere under the daily fuck (you must know this guys), and one day i'll write (and edit) more about it. cregox.net/discourse
That link still calls NodeBB a spin off from Discourse. It's a completely independent, unrelated forum. Direct competitors? Certainly. But in no way a spin off, fork, or the like.
-
@scottalanmiller from my memory, discourse was the first of its kind. from googling around 5 or 10 minutes, all i could find was a wikipedia saying discourse was released in 2013 and surprisingly nothing about nodebb there (thus taking me more than the few expected seconds to dig that info) and nowhere else could i find a quick reliable data point... github doesn't make it easy to find the first commit or even release. but using "before:2014" i found many things in 2013 and nothing before that.
it would be a very pleasant surprise to discover discourse wasn't the first!
but i don't care enough to dig deeper right now.
what's more important now, though: why isn't nodebb even on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software or the talk page??
could it be due to the terrible name?
-
@cregox Discourse was the first that really got the market going, mostly because they had money behind them. But I don't know that I'd call them first of any sort. They were a big improvement over say phpBB, but all of these forums are essentially bulletin board systems and while Discourse and NodeBB have some universally nice features, they aren't really new animals (new in 2013 at least) but just the current generation of something that's at least twenty years old (phpBB was 2000, and I was on forums like this in 1999.) Even Spiceworks, although not a publicly available platform, was Ruby on Rails and out in 2007 - and if I recall it forked someone else's code, but that I'm not sure of (it wasn't open so who knows.)
-
@scottalanmiller i think my email reply won't come through like it would've on discourse.
their great email integration and proposition of replacing mailing list was a first, for instance. and, it looks like, they're still quite unique about it.
it's a remarkable feature. much more than they themselves give credit for. because people still undervalue the importance of backup.
wait for a covid19 equivalent to hit the internet...
-
@baris thanks!
Wikipedia
Well then, first of all, I would like to point out that I've got nothing against Node.js nor NodeBB as some people like to claim here. I've been a Wikipedia ...
NodeBB Community (community.nodebb.org)
this does clear it up a lot.
but it's still from 2016!
no updates since then?!
so fringe...
-
TBH I'd expect that now NodeBB could be considered "notable enough". Especially since there is some forum software that seems to be smaller there:
Thredded has a page an an entry in the comparison article, despite it having less media coverage (looking at news section in google, there is nothing, when there a few articles that at least mention NodeBB), and less stars and forks on GitHub.
There is actually a note that the article may not meet notability guidelines on the thredded page, but apparently it has been there since 2016 and other than one deletion that was contested nothing happened to it. Ironically, one of the links by the person contesting it is to a NodeBB instance
I'd say the same about Syndie, though I can't be sure because I find a lot of articles about a lot of things, but not the forum software. And also - its last release was in 2016...
Beehive Forum has mostly dead links and 2 of 5 external references are just sites that were using Beehive. 3 others are about one vulnerability...So, I think that unless editors personal feelings would affect their work or they want to wipe a few other pages about forum software (if that's the case, then sorry to these projects!), NodeBB is notable enough by Wikipedia standards by now.
There is even a book mentioning NodeBB now: Node.js Design Patterns (There are actually a few, but this one is relevant and gives some information about NodeBB - not just mentions it).Though I think the problem of NodeBB and other forum software is that... There is very little news outlets might talk about. Unless there is some big vulnerability or something, it's just usually nothing newsworthy. So there is a lot of things like tutorials for NodeBB, but very little "news coverage".
Oh well, I might give writing a new Wikipedia article a shot, though I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia and I think I might have an oversourcing problem (that is, last time I edited a Wikipedia article I removed half of the sources I added before publishing the changes, because no one needs a source every sentence where one is more than sufficient...)
-
@oplik0 the fact that we are mentioned in the book is actually huge. It does mean that we've been published in some form or another, and that does meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines!
Here's where I become super lazy and say that you should write the article, even if it's just a stub, or lower quality. Reason being, I am not allowed to write an article myself, because I made NodeBB
-
@cregox said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
...it would be a very pleasant surprise to discover discourse wasn't the first!
Ha! Not even close. Not by decades. Bulletin Boards have been around since what, the 80's? All that comes later, home grown scripts, first perl, then php, then a multitude of phb bulletin boards/forums - some stand alone, some incorporated into cms's, online learning, e.g. Atutor and Moodle - is merely evolution of the base concept. So we can make different kinds of wheels these days but that does not change the fact that every new model that claims to have "invented the wheel" are merely legends in their own minds.
-
@gotwf said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
@cregox said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
...it would be a very pleasant surprise to discover discourse wasn't the first!
Ha! Not even close. Not by decades. Bulletin Boards have been around since what, the 80's? All that comes later, home grown scripts, first perl, then php, then a multitude of phb bulletin boards/forums - some stand alone, some incorporated into cms's, online learning, e.g. Atutor and Moodle - is merely evolution of the base concept. So we can make different kinds of wheels these days but that does not change the fact that every new model gets to claim to have "invented the wheel".
Yeah, the first ones I knew about were 1983. They were decently new then, but not new new.
From there to here has been evolution, not revolution. Much like how email hasn't changed under the hood, but how pretty the interface is has a bit.
-
@julian said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
@gotwf I think @cregox is referring to the "next generation" of forums, of which we are siblings of a sort.
There are only a few of that group that have reached critical mass as to become self-sustaining: NodeBB, Discourse, and Flarum.
Yep. All of which got evaluated by /me prior to rolling out NodeBB. Flarum would have been second choice, Discourse, last place.
And yeah, I did grok @cregox was talking about the latest gen but felt the need to chime in with some historical perspective.
-
too often i also add textual data to things (like my own notes) without enough context and they get confusing... right now, unless i would clear this up and say i'm referring to how @gotwf brought up history without mentioning his point was just a spin off (i got confused there as well @julian), this whole paragraph would already be quite confusing even for my future self!
on another note: to me emails have no such evolution as did forums, at all. forget trying to define differences with revolution...
(we can find patterns in anything we want, and give them names. the fact that we do so and use common words instead of new names is a big reason for the babylonian communication we still live today. probably for good reasons, or else each tribe will of continue to have their own language. thank god for the dictionary attempt!)
i rather use a rating out of my ass, for this.
say since they were invented, emails have added some support for html, 1 point for that, and spam protection gets 2 full points. maintenance (it still works, it's still unique) gets 4 points. what else? i can't see any more meaningful standards. 7 points... not sure out of how many total yet. i'm devising this idea out of another similar system i've done...
as for forums, it's much more complex, because there was never a standardized protocol thought throughout... but that also brought more innovation! or have it? i'm writing out loud my thought process here, with little editing... they have added spam as well. 2p. and better html was more like a need, so zero points, but from that, to bbcode and markdown deserves 2p. maintenance is the same 4p as well. it's already superior at this point... then there was the before mentioned big overhaul of 2013. it is maintenance, but it's upgraded to 2.0, which email never did (and still needs to do). 2 easy p here. 10 points total...
i'm probably forgetting some criteria, so for control shall we think about another communication mean, say messaging... emoji 2p (nothing for improved formatting), spam 2p, still exist 2p (nothing for being so unique, it's way too fragmented)... i would give negative points for killing xmpp in favor of stupid proprietary protocols -2p... then there are audio, video and even recording sometimes, 2p... no points for making groups, as it never reached the gold standard that existed before, irc. and -1p for still having not a single solution that's open source and hassle free multi platform, like forums and emails do... then -2p for being almost impossible today to have a proper working backup out of what people use today (telegram, signal, viber, wechat, sms, and the obvious skype, google, facebook, whatsapp, am i missing something?)... backup only works if it's automated and spread out. like it's easy to do with good forums and any email. lol, 3 points in total... either messaging have changed almost nothing (compared to email and forums) or my criteria sucks balls. but it's the only one with negative points, so it's 8-5, which shows all it happened is it went more backwards than both.
just an over the top of my mind strokes on why i believe forums improved much more than email (and even messaging, apparently).
and, still, i would call scuttlebutt a revolution... really hope it'll adapt so people will catch it sooner than later. not even the mobile development have caught up enough to become compelling, yet.
-
@cregox said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
say since they were invented, emails have added some support for html, 1 point for that, and spam protection gets 2 full points. maintenance (it still works, it's still unique) gets 4 points. what else? i can't see any more meaningful standards. 7 points... not sure out of how many total yet.
None of that is email, though. They are extra systems that manage the email experience, but email itself hasn't changed. It's still just the SMTP messages being passed back and forth.
This makes it seem like email is evolving, but it isn't. The use of email is evolving, but that's different. Like my hammer examples.... people used to use a hammer one way when it was first released, now people use it in other ways. Same hammer. An email system from 1994 will be indistinguishable from one today to the end user, because all of the advancements you are perceiving as email are outside of the email portion and are like presentation layer or how end users use it or whatever.
-
@cregox said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
i'm probably forgetting some criteria, so for control shall we think about another communication mean, say messaging... emoji 2p (nothing for improved formatting), spam 2p, still exist 2p (nothing for being so unique, it's way too fragmented)... i would give negative points for killing xmpp in favor of stupid proprietary protocols -2p... then there are audio, video and even recording sometimes, 2p... no points for making groups, as it never reached the gold standard that existed before, irc. and -1p for still having not a single solution that's open source and hassle free multi platform, like forums and emails do... then -2p for being almost impossible today to have a proper working backup out of what people use today (telegram, signal, viber, wechat, sms, and the obvious skype, google, facebook, whatsapp, am i missing something?)... backup only works if it's automated and spread out. like it's easy to do with good forums and any email. lol, 3 points in total... either messaging have changed almost nothing (compared to email and forums) or my criteria sucks balls. but it's the only one with negative points, so it's 8-5, which shows all it happened is it went more backwards than both.
Similarly, almost everything here isn't really changes to the forum concept, they are just (mostly) presentation layer artefacts of modern interfaces. Displaying embedded video, for example, doesn't happen in the forum but in the end user's browser. If I was to make a new "forum viewer" tool for people, and let them look at 1980s forums, we could do the same things with emoji, videos, images, audio, and so forth. Backups, groups, email, spam management... all things you could keep with a 1980s forum.
My point being, it's not like it's a revolution or a new generation or product, it's just a new forum in the general sense. That's not a bad thing, just like it isn't bad that email hasn't had a revolution - the base concept is so solid and stable that you can use it however you want in a modern context without needing a new generation or whatever.
I think what I'm trying to say is that when you look at something like a forum and perceive it as the "interface to the forum" or in email as the "application that displays the email", it's easy to feel like things have changed dramatically. But when you look at the application and the basics are the same, just a new implementation, that's where you can determine if there is a new generation or approach or whatever. Because, like with email, we can always apply a new interface to an old forum.
In fact, you could take a 1980s dial up BB system, write a text parser (pretty easily), and use that as a backend and make a display system that exactly mimics NodeBB's default and you'd not be able to tell which was which. It would be weird and a waste of effort, but you could do it and people would think you had a new forum with cool features like emoji, image emedding, video auto-play, and all that stuff. But it's just the in browser interface portion, not the forum.
-
it's much easier (rather than writing software) to prove you wrong again, @scottalanmiller ... in all your points there, namely the hammer, the bbs and the forums (already did that, all you're doing is playing with names).
but i'll leave even the most of that work (of proving) to the readers imagination (which may include yours, of course), instead of grabbing pictures of hammers (as i might have, if i cared more for this).
picture a hammer as just a piece of wood. that's for sure the first hammer. it couldn't hammer a nail, but it could jam together something.
then a more modern one, with metal. it's the typical hammer.
now a drill, with combustion. much bigger nails, very different.
now an electric hammer, able to be much stronger (than the regular one) and precise (than any hammer before). completely different.
then micro hammers. no idea how those are called, but they can now hammer small needless in a magnetic disk, to create something yet completely different.
you're wrong once again.
hammers went a long way.
i'm probably wrong from your point of view as well. but i'm the one bringing my point of view first and just giving my perspective. you don't need to attack me EVERYTIME you see it wrong. or even if you feel you're not doing it enough times, i'm telling you very clearly now: it's beyond too much.
right now i just wished i had a filter for your name so i wouldn't feel compelled to chime in. since the tool doesn't offer this, i'm conditioning myself to do it.
good luck calling my attention to write to you next time, if that's a deep dark wish of yours.
very bold, right? aggressive even? but at least transparent.
cheers!
-
@cregox said in Unable to post, Akismet says my post is spam:
it's much easier (rather than writing software) to prove you wrong again, @scottalanmiller ... in all your points there, namely the hammer, the bbs and the forums (already did that, all you're doing is playing with names).
but i'll leave even the most of that work (of proving) to the readers imagination (which may include yours, of course), instead of grabbing pictures of hammers (as i might have, if i cared more for this).
picture a hammer as just a piece of wood. that's for sure the first hammer. it couldn't hammer a nail, but it could jam together something.
then a more modern one, with metal. it's the typical hammer.
now a drill, with combustion. much bigger nails, very different.
now an electric hammer, able to be much stronger (than the regular one) and precise (than any hammer before). completely different.The difference there is that you are changing the thing. The point of the hammer analogy is that.... the tool didn't change. How we use it changed, but there isn't the jump from the hammer to the drill or anything like that, which I went into detail explaining and you are now overlooking as if I didn't write it. The whole point of what I wrote is that change didn't happen.
You are acting like there has been some huge change in these products when the products themselves are effectively identical to what they've always been.
You understand that a hammer to a drill is both a huge leap in technology as well as tools that act different and serve different purposes. Could something be more opposite than something like email where literally no change whatsoever has happened... which I pointed out in detail so that this kind of confused response shouldn't have happened?
