A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

It's been a long, long time...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 9th 10, 11:50 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Mr. Jaggers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,523
Default It's been a long, long time...

Farmer Dave wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 22:35:46 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/8/2010 8:12 AM, EricBabula wrote:

But, it looks like RCC is very quiet - is that true?

RCC is a lot quieter than it has ever been, probably since shortly
after its creation. There's so little traffic relatively speaking
that for the most part dealers as well as collectors don't even
bother posting For Sale messages here anymore. The two guys who used
to post news stories about coins that they found on the Net, a
really good source of on-topic content, don't bother doing that
here anymore either. A lot of other really smart coin people have
left too, including some who were here for a long time.

The reasons are as you'd expect, mostly a continued intensification
of previous trends, which affects all newsgroups, though some more
than others. I'd list them this way in terms of importance:


[appropriate snips made in following]

1) Excessive chitchat [misspelling corrected].

2) Anonymous flaming.

3) The ending of free newsfeeds by just about all the major ISPs.

#3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have
left permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid.
And WTH are you to determine what is "excessive"?

James the Chitchatter


I thought this was a coin group and not an Inglish class!!


It *is* a coin group. What wudja like to talk about, coin-wise (the Sainted
Mrs. Swan is probably turning in her grave over that last sentence)?

James the Anglais


Ads
  #12  
Old April 9th 10, 01:47 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Jud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,215
Default It's been a long, long time...

On Apr 9, 6:50*am, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:


It *is* a coin group. *What wudja like to talk about, coin-wise (the Sainted
Mrs. Swan is probably turning in her grave over that last sentence)?

James the Anglais


Rolling because of the spelling, punctuation or the grammar? Why for
didja wanna speak thusly?

Jud -My grammar is my mother's mother.
  #13  
Old April 9th 10, 03:19 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
EricBabula[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default It's been a long, long time...

On Apr 8, 7:20*pm, Alan Bruns wrote:
EricBabula wrote in news:2caddeb9-3d8c-4b11-bb2c-
:

I think I'd like to
find a new News Feed service (FREE if possible), and a Newsreader (I
used to use XNews and liked it - will have to see if that still
works). Is Tera News (Free) still the way others have gone, in order
to get all the RCC posts, including
alt.binaries.pictures.numismatic??? Any other suggestions?


XNews still works just fine; certainly a lot better than Google for what I
need. *I've got my copy set up to read News from AIOE (mostly) and Eternal
September (as a backup). *They're both free, but neither carries abpn. *
Most folks have adapted to the general loss of binary newsgroup coverage by
simply posting photos to one of the free sites dedicated to that purpose
and posting links to them here. *Tera News wants $3.95 to set up an account
(in order to post), but so far I don't see any good reason to spend even
that small amount.

Welcome back... *(I've been lurking a long time - bought some IH cents from
you a while back.)

-Alan Bruns


Alan - Thanks for the info about AIOE and Eternal September. I'll have
to check them out, this weekend.

Really? You bought IHCs from me? Thank you! Hope they were ok - I
can't remember what they were.

I was actually thinking I might want to downsize some of my duplicates
and misc coins I don't really have a place for. Of course, I have to
find time to image them, and get the ebay listings created. Has anyone
figured out how to squeeze in an extra 2 or 3 hours per day? I could
use it!

Eric Babula
  #14  
Old April 9th 10, 05:03 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Reid Goldsborough[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default It's been a long, long time...

On 4/9/2010 6:45 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Anyway, I have previously observed that my own coin-related posts of late
have garnered extremely limited participation by either the regulars or the
unseen and unknowable army of lurkers out there. You're certainly welcome
to initiate some numismatic threads of your own and see if you can do any
better.


I'm afraid ... well, not really afraid, this is just an expression, an
attempt at softening a comment that's fairly brutal in its honesty ...
that the reason your on-topic coin posts have generated the extremely
limited participation you speak of is that the coins you collect and
post about are for the vast majority of collectors extremely boring. But
this isn't all negative, doom and gloom. No need to get discouraged!
There's a silver lining here, a bright light at the end of the tunnel.
Use this feedback. Learn. Grow. How? Start collecting more interesting
coins.

I'd be happy of offer suggestions. I'm sure others would too. People
here, despite the negative side I discussed in my two previous posts in
this thread, are for the most part helpful, kind, and generous, as I've
said before. So dump that ratty collection and start afresh. I'd simply
dump it in a river or some such place, surprising some archeologist in
the future with the frivolous eclecticism of early 21st century
Americans, rather than throwing good time after bad in trying to obtain
anything decent for it on the market.

Just trying to be helpful here.

Let me show you, as an example. I'll start a new thread, later today
probably, on a coin type I collect. Watch all the enthusiastic comments
and curious questions it generates.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
  #15  
Old April 9th 10, 09:02 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Jud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,215
Default It's been a long, long time...

On Apr 9, 12:03*pm, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

Let me show you, as an example. I'll start a new thread, later today
probably, on a coin type I collect. Watch all the enthusiastic comments
and curious questions it generates.

--

Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos


OK everybody! Start collecting what Reid collects. It is obvious that
those are the ONLY coins to collect, the only ones that are
interesting. Hey! Maybe we can drive up the prices with demand so that
Reid can come down from his lofty perch and start collecting modern
(YIKES) US coins, which apparently nobody is interested in.

Jud -Tongue in Cheek-

  #16  
Old April 9th 10, 09:09 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
mazorj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,169
Default It's been a long, long time...


"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/8/2010 11:35 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

1) Excessive chitchat [misspelling corrected].

2) Anonymous flaming.

3) The ending of free newsfeeds by just about all the major ISPs.

#3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left
permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are
you
to determine what is "excessive"?


The main reason that ISPs have canceled Usenet feeds is falling
popularity,


Unless you've got data to prove it, I don't accept your flat fiat assertion
that newsgroup posting traffic on the whole has shrunk to any significant
degree, or your conclusion as to why ISPs have dropped newsgroup service.

True, we must have lost some users when the ISPs pulled the plug, but not so
many that I have noticed. Most non-casual newsgoupies seem to have migrated
to other forms of access.

As to maintaining overall volume and interest in UseNet, I occasionally
visit a newsgroup that still gets 300-400 posts a day. I don't subscribe to
it because I can't even come close to staying abreast in it. But whenever I
do look in, I find a wealth of interesting rabbit holes to dive into, some
on topic, some OT. Conversely, I stopped reading a moderated coin forum
operated by a TPG because at least a third of the posts I was reading were
moronic, cheer-leading atta-boys to people posting photos of mediocre coins
in the hope of getting an affirmation that their modest purchase or find is
really a significant, enviable prize. "Hey, Jimbo, that really is a superb
1907 Indian Head cent in G-8 you got there! Wow! Whatta find!
Congratulations!" Moderated groups have their own sources of high
noise-to-signal ratios.

From my viewpoint, the overall newsgroup landscape hasn't changed to any
significant degree since I went online in 1983. IIRC, when Verizon dumped
newsgroups last year it had about 10,000 listed. When I started, the number
was in the low thousands.

Okay, but what about rcc? A year ago I identified a little over 100
"regular" posters here. If this were a moderated group that allowed
absolutely nothing OT, my guess is that by now rcc would be a semi-deserted
Internet ghost town with maybe a handful of hard-core contributors. Average
daily traffic would be paltry and rcc would go the way of most moribund
newsgroups, i.e., devolve into an almost empty echo chamber for its
dwindling in-crowd.

Not being a masochist, I'm not going to do the leg work on the following;
but it would be helpful if we could compare the raw number of on-topic rcc
posts today with your putative Golden Age of years ago. How many regulars
did you have back then posting on topic? More than 100 as we do today? Or
a handful of hard-core types? Absent the data this is all supposition, but
given the presumably larger number of posters now participating, I wouldn't
be surprised if we were to find that there are as many or more on-topic
posts today as there were then. They're just surrounded by more of the
chit-chat that bugs you.

As to the ISPs, what clearly and obviously has shrunk is the relative size
of newsgroup traffic *in relation to* other types of Internet traffic and
related forms of community-based communication. The major ISPs also offer
mobile and cable services, many at obscene mark-ups. Texting, photo/video
sharing, and related Web services have been the growth sectors for social
intercourse at a distance. They generate obscene profits for these ISPs
because hordes of younger customers are attracted by, and will pay for these
new paradigms. UseNet would be too fuddy-duddy for them, even if they were
aware of its existence and that it was free.

OTOH, the older UseNet crowd continues to post but it has a history of not
being willing to pay a premium for newsgroups because they almost always had
been bundled into the monthly charges. So with virtually all new customers
gravitating to the new profit opportunities provided by smart phones and Web
gimmicks and the new online "watering holes" such as FaceBook and Twitter,
UseNet kept its existing base but had lost its long-standing status as a
draw for new customers.

To the bean counters, that made it an expendible net loss. So at some point
the ISPs decided that they could safely dump UseNet newsgroups without
harming their customer growth. Once the first one broke the ice and didn't
suffer any dire consequences, the other majors quickly followed suit.
Newsgroupies bitched and moaned, but few left their established ISPs in
protest. Where elso could you go? And if you still wanted cable and
Internet and mobile phone service, you didn't have any real alternatives
except to bemoan the loss and keep paying for the other services. Which in
turn validated the bean counters' reasoning. If their paying customers
stayed on and switched to getting their UseNet fix from free or inexpensive
third-party providers, that was no skin off their noses. So in the end, the
reason that ISPs dropped newsgroups was not because of any waning interest
from their established users. It was because it saved them money, and
because they could.

and the main reasons that Usenet popularity has fallen so precipitously
over the past half decade or so, I'd say, are excessive chitchat and
anonymous flaming and the availability of other types of online forums
that aren't beset to the same extent by these problems. All this is
according to my observations, but others have observed likewise.


I have observed differently here, both in the level of UseNet usage and in
my analysis of why the ISPs have dropped it.

It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more serious a
problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the more likely
reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though it's not
characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of flaming.


So what are we to make of the fact that as someone who so loudly and
vehemently decries "chit-chat" as a supposedly destructive force, you keep
coming back for more? Your self-serving reasons don't wash. You do it
because you enjoy it and because it serves as an outlet for your ego. Which
sounds pretty much like a chit-chatty, OT reason for you continuing to
participate in rcc.

Your dirty little secret is out, Reid. You love chit-chat - but only when
it's all about you.

People inhabit newsgroups for many reasons other than the nominal purpose
stated in the name and charter. In that 400 post/day newsgroup, I'd
estimate that only 10%-15% of the posts are strictly on-topic to the title
of the group. The others are intelligent, well-informed discussions of
topics that are only indirectly related to the core purpose of the group,
equivalent to, say, rcc discussions of economics and history as they might
indirectly affect numismatics. You almost never hear the core group
complaining about OT in "their" newsgroup, presumably because they also find
value in it. These are the same kinds of posts in rcc that you disdain as
strictly OT but others here find informative and useful in their collecting
pursuits - or just interesting in their own right.

....

Some diversion is only human nature, as I said earlier. This is a
discussion group, after all, and people go off on tangents. But it all has
to do with signal to noise, with whether or not there's enough that's
engaging to make any given online discussion group worth returning to. And
the unfortunate reality, the undeniable reality, is that increasingly
people find that this group is not worth returning to.


Given the example of that 400/day group (and there are plenty of others
functioning at that level despite their low ratio of on-topic material), I
arrive at the exact opposite conclusion. While some may have drifted away
because it requires a little work to sift out the numismatic nuggets, IMO
the only reason that rcc still functions at a critical-mass level is
precisely *because* we have an eclectic group that finds rcc to be the right
mix of on-topic and interesting off-topic material.

Discussion of an online group's internal dynamics ... common topic. It too
can become excessive. But I'm not going to try to quantify that either.


Net-kopping posts also can become excessive. You of all people are not in
position to be able to objectively calibrate that point either, but I'm
pretty sure that the group's annoyance threshold for your petulant scolding
is much lower.

  #17  
Old April 10th 10, 12:40 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Reid Goldsborough[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default It's been a long, long time...

On 4/9/2010 4:09 PM, mazorj wrote:

Unless you've got data to prove it


That's a nonstarter, as you well know. Yes, as I indicated, I have no
"data," but I do have observations and I have read the observations of
others. It couldn't be clearer, based on these observations as well on
what's written about Usenet elsewhere on the Internet, that Usenet is
long past its heyday. No, I'm not "whining" about this. This is not
chitchat either, an absurd contention of yours, and my posts in this
thread, sharing my opinions on the reasons for Usenet's current state,
aren't about me (!), another absurd contention of yours. Your repeated
spelling of Usenet as "UseNet" is also telling. On the positive side,
your analysis of the financial factors involved with ISPs' decision
making regarding Usenet access was right on target, in my view.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
  #18  
Old April 10th 10, 12:52 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Reid Goldsborough[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default It's been a long, long time...

On 4/9/2010 4:02 PM, Jud wrote:

OK everybody! Start collecting what Reid collects. It is obvious that
those are the ONLY coins to collect, the only ones that are
interesting. Hey! Maybe we can drive up the prices with demand so that
Reid can come down from his lofty perch and start collecting modern
(YIKES) US coins, which apparently nobody is interested in.

Jud -Tongue in Cheek-


Actually I do collect (some) modern U.S. coins. Just one right now on my
want list, which I've discussed here before, probably too many times:
Presidential dollar that somebody finds that had previously been holed,
to wear as jewelry, on a keychain, etc. I can see maybe three other
people in the world also interested in such a coin. Maybe more.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
  #19  
Old April 10th 10, 02:51 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Nick Knight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 496
Default It's been a long, long time...

In , on 04/09/2010
at 01:14 AM, Reid Goldsborough said:

#3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left
permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are you
to determine what is "excessive"?


[...]

It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more serious a
problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the more likely
reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though it's not
characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of flaming.


James the Chitchatter


You're right about that, I'm afraid, and are more likely than anyone here
to be the first to respond to a thread, as far as I can see, and more
likely than anyone to divert it to whatever you happen to want to chat
about.


You ask "WTH" am I to determine what's excessive chitchat. Well, I'm a
long-time participant here, and like all participants I have to right to
offer opinion,


I agree completely, at least with how detrimental the chit-chatting is.
It's ironic that the abusers are also so verbose when defending their
practice. I see already where this thread (or was it one of the other few
that I am currently following?) has already bent towards a grammar
discussion, complete with a slang-like bad example competition. Wow.

I am a huge advocate of kill-filing. I usually killfile when someone is
nasty or pigheadedly stuck on some moronic personal mission that isn't
supported by logic or real-world example. However, more recently, I've been
plonking the chit-chatters. And it's worked quite well, IMO. Perhaps
others have, too, and this might explain why, when someone posts a genuine
on-topic article, few respond. Personally, I don't want to invest the time
in trying to distill value from the static. NOTE that I would and have
appreciated the genuine, on-topic posts. It's just too hard to find them
amongst the clutter. Or, when found in the past, they turn to quickly to
trips into the weeds.

I have permanently killfiled the top 2 chit-chatters here. I had
temporarily killfiled 3rd place, but I see that has expired. Yet, I'm
greated with a long-winded rant from that poster giving us his views on the
history of Usenet, all while trying to ultimately defend the practice. I'll
resist the temptation to re-plonk, at least for the weekend, but the other 2
started as temporaries a couple of times.

WTH are they for assuming their pointy opinions on chitchatting are shared
with others? Simply because there is more than one and they can fuel each
others' fancy doesn't make it an acceptible practice. I love the
justification offered: "If we don't chit-chat (er, or offer off-topic
posts(, volume drops and there seems to be a void". So, instead, lets pump
up the volume and make it difficult to find anything of value.

In my opinion backed by many years of personal experience, Usenet's value
HAS deteriorated. I can't speak to the overall trends in volume, except to
say that I've abandoned online technical discussions that used to prove so
valuable. It's much easier to google for answers now and avoid the influx
of static. I still follow a few groups, but not anything like in the past.
Volume may still be up by count, and/or by bandwidth, but value-per-byte
certainly isn't. IMNSHO, of course.

Nick
  #20  
Old April 10th 10, 05:39 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Bruce Remick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,391
Default It's been a long, long time...


"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 04/09/2010
at 01:14 AM, Reid Goldsborough said:

#3 is eminently valid as a reason to explain why many people have left
permanently. But to say that #1 trumps #2 is absurd, Reid. And WTH are
you
to determine what is "excessive"?


[...]

It's also my observation that the excessive chitchat is more serious a
problem because it takes up far more verbal space and is the more likely
reason any given on-topic conversation is diverted, though it's not
characterized of course by the nasty emotional violence of flaming.


James the Chitchatter


You're right about that, I'm afraid, and are more likely than anyone here
to be the first to respond to a thread, as far as I can see, and more
likely than anyone to divert it to whatever you happen to want to chat
about.


You ask "WTH" am I to determine what's excessive chitchat. Well, I'm a
long-time participant here, and like all participants I have to right to
offer opinion,


I agree completely, at least with how detrimental the chit-chatting is.
It's ironic that the abusers are also so verbose when defending their
practice. I see already where this thread (or was it one of the other few
that I am currently following?) has already bent towards a grammar
discussion, complete with a slang-like bad example competition. Wow.

I am a huge advocate of kill-filing. I usually killfile when someone is
nasty or pigheadedly stuck on some moronic personal mission that isn't
supported by logic or real-world example. However, more recently, I've
been
plonking the chit-chatters. And it's worked quite well, IMO. Perhaps
others have, too, and this might explain why, when someone posts a genuine
on-topic article, few respond. Personally, I don't want to invest the
time
in trying to distill value from the static. NOTE that I would and have
appreciated the genuine, on-topic posts. It's just too hard to find them
amongst the clutter. Or, when found in the past, they turn to quickly to
trips into the weeds.

I have permanently killfiled the top 2 chit-chatters here. I had
temporarily killfiled 3rd place, but I see that has expired. Yet, I'm
greated with a long-winded rant from that poster giving us his views on
the
history of Usenet, all while trying to ultimately defend the practice.
I'll
resist the temptation to re-plonk, at least for the weekend, but the other
2
started as temporaries a couple of times.

WTH are they for assuming their pointy opinions on chitchatting are shared
with others? Simply because there is more than one and they can fuel each
others' fancy doesn't make it an acceptible practice. I love the
justification offered: "If we don't chit-chat (er, or offer off-topic
posts(, volume drops and there seems to be a void". So, instead, lets
pump
up the volume and make it difficult to find anything of value.

In my opinion backed by many years of personal experience, Usenet's value
HAS deteriorated. I can't speak to the overall trends in volume, except
to
say that I've abandoned online technical discussions that used to prove so
valuable. It's much easier to google for answers now and avoid the
influx
of static. I still follow a few groups, but not anything like in the
past.
Volume may still be up by count, and/or by bandwidth, but value-per-byte
certainly isn't. IMNSHO, of course.

Nick


Five paragraphs of your personal creed chitchat containing nothing
coin-related? So you thought a "long winded rant" of someone else's views
was irritating, eh. I just can't resist citing the standard
"pot-kettle...." thing here.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
long time lurker introduction builderr General Discussion 0 October 28th 09 05:21 AM
I'm back after a long time and would like to exchange postcars again E. Bogeholt General Discussion 0 November 14th 04 04:42 PM
best day in a long time dahoov2 Autographs 6 December 16th 03 05:02 AM
1.6% daily for a good long time Truesys Paper Money 1 December 4th 03 05:22 AM
You know you are a long time collector when...... John Stone Coins 18 October 15th 03 05:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.