Where to Post?

[Guest]

I repeat here my response to Daze in Announcements below
[microsoft.private.security.spyware.announcements]
[subject: Re: Daze W D Checkpoints] [6/1/2006]

Is there a FAQ, set of rules or just some general suggestions on which
Questions/Posts go in what section?

Original Posts follow:
"Daze,
Your welcome. I'm a little confused myself about where certain types of
posts should go. It would seem to me that most of the things/questions I see
should be in "General" and that "Announcements" should be for, well
announcements (e.g. New Engine Versions are out! for Defender, AdAware,
SpyBot, here is a link to manually download..., Warning Major Problem in
...., etc...) and the other sections are pretty self explanitory, except for
"Online Community"
----------------------------------

Thanks, Tim. Your post in General *does* help explain a few things. I
hadn't seen your post there because I've only been monitoring the
Announcements newsgroup. I'll now add General to my list.

?
Tim
Geek w/o Portfolio

Dell 280 Optiplex
3.2Ghz Pent 4, 1 GB Ram
Windows XP SP2 fully patched
WD Real Time Protection is On
WD CheckPoint in SysRest Disabled
WD Updates thru Windows Update (prompted)
No AutoScan, Manual Quick Scan Every 2 Days
======================================

 

[Daze]

I repeat here my response to Daze in Announcements below
[microsoft.private.security.spyware.announcements]
[subject: Re: Daze W D Checkpoints] [6/1/2006]

Is there a FAQ, set of rules or just some general suggestions on which
Questions/Posts go in what section?

Original Posts follow:
"Daze,
Your welcome. I'm a little confused myself about where certain types of
posts should go. It would seem to me that most of the things/questions I see
should be in "General" and that "Announcements" should be for, well
announcements (e.g. New Engine Versions are out! for Defender, AdAware,
SpyBot, here is a link to manually download..., Warning Major Problem in
..., etc...) and the other sections are pretty self explanitory, except for
"Online Community"
----------------------------------

Thanks, Tim. Your post in General *does* help explain a few things. I
hadn't seen your post there because I've only been monitoring the
Announcements newsgroup. I'll now add General to my list.

I agree, Tim. It does seem that Announcements should really be strictly
for, as you say, announcements. For myself, the reason that I've been
active in that ng lately with non-announcement issues is because I was
referred to that ng--for a Windows Defenders problem I was having--by a
poster in the grc.com newsgroups and I found that I could, indeed, get
the help that I needed there.

 

[Guest]

Your understanding is correct, and your confusion isn't surprising either.

The problem is the use of an archaic NewsGroup (NNTP) structure for support
of a less techie user population that has learned how to use Web links and
searches. NewsGroup software tends to limit things that are standard in Web
based forums such as the moving of threads to the correct sub-forum or
'pinned' threads. It also leads to the sub-thread appearance you see here in
an HTML view, which is only useful if everyone follows the intended structure.

This system was quite functional when the Internet had no web browsers and
everything was handled via email. However, the real standard for most users
now is using a web browser, so the NNTP NewsGroup structure has become a ball
and chain. Currently, the Windows forums that do exist for things like
Windows Live OneCare are only a bit better, since they still use some of this
archaic arcitecture in their design.

Microsoft has some of the best web based support services in the world,
including their Knowledgebase, but they've held on to these NewsGroups,
probably since they were primarily the domain of us geeks. Now that more
regular users are expected to frequent this information, they seriously need
to consider switching the more public groups to a forum structure, since a
few pinned posts could answer about 80% of the questions asked here daily.

NNTP had its day, it's time to bring this part of MS Support out of the
Internet Dark Ages.

Bitman

I repeat here my response to Daze in Announcements below
[microsoft.private.security.spyware.announcements]
[subject: Re: Daze W D Checkpoints] [6/1/2006]

Is there a FAQ, set of rules or just some general suggestions on which
Questions/Posts go in what section?

Original Posts follow:
"Daze,
Your welcome. I'm a little confused myself about where certain types of
posts should go. It would seem to me that most of the things/questions I see
should be in "General" and that "Announcements" should be for, well
announcements (e.g. New Engine Versions are out! for Defender, AdAware,
SpyBot, here is a link to manually download..., Warning Major Problem in
..., etc...) and the other sections are pretty self explanitory, except for
"Online Community"
----------------------------------

Thanks, Tim. Your post in General *does* help explain a few things. I
hadn't seen your post there because I've only been monitoring the
Announcements newsgroup. I'll now add General to my list.

I agree, Tim. It does seem that Announcements should really be strictly
for, as you say, announcements. For myself, the reason that I've been
active in that ng lately with non-announcement issues is because I was
referred to that ng--for a Windows Defenders problem I was having--by a
poster in the grc.com newsgroups and I found that I could, indeed, get
the help that I needed there.

 

[Bill Sanderson MVP]

Your understanding is correct, and your confusion isn't surprising either.

The problem is the use of an archaic NewsGroup (NNTP) structure for
support
of a less techie user population that has learned how to use Web links and
searches. NewsGroup software tends to limit things that are standard in
Web
based forums such as the moving of threads to the correct sub-forum or
'pinned' threads. It also leads to the sub-thread appearance you see here
in
an HTML view, which is only useful if everyone follows the intended
structure.

This system was quite functional when the Internet had no web browsers and
everything was handled via email. However, the real standard for most
users
now is using a web browser, so the NNTP NewsGroup structure has become a
ball
and chain. Currently, the Windows forums that do exist for things like
Windows Live OneCare are only a bit better, since they still use some of
this
archaic arcitecture in their design.

Microsoft has some of the best web based support services in the world,
including their Knowledgebase, but they've held on to these NewsGroups,
probably since they were primarily the domain of us geeks. Now that more
regular users are expected to frequent this information, they seriously
need
to consider switching the more public groups to a forum structure, since a
few pinned posts could answer about 80% of the questions asked here daily.

NNTP had its day, it's time to bring this part of MS Support out of the
Internet Dark Ages.

I don't disagree with most, maybe all--of what you've said here. Where NNTP
shines for me is in speed and ease of use. I can see at a glance whether
there are new messages in a group and how many, and whether there are
responses to messages of mine.

I use the HTML interface to these groups periodically, mostly when there are
malfunctions on the NNTP side, but sometimes just to try to get the feel for
whether the plusses of that form of access outweighs the negatives. So far,
I've never managed to stick with the HTML side for very long.

Additionally, NNTP forum access is included in the mail client being written
for Vista, and it is expanded to include the "communities" features of the
HTML view into these groups--MVP designations, abilities of users to rate
posts, etc.

Microsoft's committment is to as broad a public access as possible to these
support groups. I don't know the current state of the Internet, but there
was a time not long ago when some significant bits of geography had
primarily email access to the 'net. This may have changed--but until web
access is ubiquitous, a form of interchange more akin to email, with the
attributes of efficient use of bytes, and the ability to work offilen--will
still be valuable.

 

[Guest]

Yes Bill, and I'm glad you understand it's the interface I'm discussing and
not your and others efforts. I just feel you and those coming here would be
better served by an interface that helped solve, rather than create problems.
By requiring the architecture to first serve NNTP, it drastically limits some
simple and effective features of the HTML capability. So it's not surprising
that anyone familiar with NNTP would revert to that interrface. Most of the
NNTP abilities you mention have parallels in a forum architecture.

The key issue here is that in a public forum, most that visit will never
'join' the community long term and in fact may never even sign up if they
find their answer within existing threads. We can assume some grand idea of
'community', but the reality is that most are here to solve a problem and are
not likely to return again. The current architecture results in far more
accounts being created, used for a redundant question, never to be used again.

I don't deny that some may still be better off with NNTP, especially those
reading regularly, but the architecture needs to shift to favor the HTML
interface and the key abilities it allows. Maybe the changes in the Vista
reader and even the Windows Forums are designed to allow this, we can only
hope.

Bitman

 

[Daze]

Yes Bill, and I'm glad you understand it's the interface I'm discussing and
not your and others efforts. I just feel you and those coming here would be
better served by an interface that helped solve, rather than create problems.
By requiring the architecture to first serve NNTP, it drastically limits some
simple and effective features of the HTML capability. So it's not surprising
that anyone familiar with NNTP would revert to that interrface. Most of the
NNTP abilities you mention have parallels in a forum architecture.

The key issue here is that in a public forum, most that visit will never
'join' the community long term and in fact may never even sign up if they
find their answer within existing threads. We can assume some grand idea of
'community', but the reality is that most are here to solve a problem and are
not likely to return again. The current architecture results in far more
accounts being created, used for a redundant question, never to be used again.

I don't deny that some may still be better off with NNTP, especially those
reading regularly, but the architecture needs to shift to favor the HTML
interface and the key abilities it allows. Maybe the changes in the Vista
reader and even the Windows Forums are designed to allow this, we can only
hope.

Bitman

I'm here via NNTP and wondering what URL to visit in HTML?

 

[Dave M]

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/newsgroups/default.mspx

 

[Daze]

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/newsgroups/default.mspx

There it is. Thanks, Dave!

 

[Guest]

Daze,

For a comparison of what I'm talking about take a look at the Windows Live
OneCare Forums here:
http://forums.microsoft.com/Windowsonecare/default.aspx?SiteID=2

Though these forums are dedicated to OneCare, they include an Anti-Spyware
forum with a pinned post about the updating issue. Though there is far more
useful information about Defender here in the NewsGroups, it's easier to
browse and more visually appealing in the forum view.

NewsGroups have other advantages for those using the features, but for a
random or one-time viewer it's work to set up and the HTML view is sluggish
and unfriendly. The Windows Forums are also searchable across the
Microsoft.com family of web sites, whereas I don't believe the NewsGroups are
outside their own pages. We are receiving posters in the Anti-Spyware forum
who are unaware of these Newsgroups for that very reason, which is an
advantage to neither site.

Bill and others here do a great job of informing, but much of their work is
duplication due to the interface. NNTP was designed for long term membership
in a group or 'community' as it's now described. Forums can be used that way,
but are better suited to casual or one-time browsers.

Bitman

 

[Bill Sanderson MVP]

Public newsgroups are quite searchable via Google. These beta groups,
however, are not public newsgroups--they are not available outside
microsoft's server, even though the credentials are publicly available.
So--Google doesn't index them. There is at least one web forum in the UK
which pulls in this content and presents it as a web forum, and that is
searchable via Google.

--