?

Log in

No account? Create an account
USENET-style LJ client? - LiveJournal Client Discussions — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LiveJournal Client Discussions

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

USENET-style LJ client? [Aug. 23rd, 2004|12:48 am]
LiveJournal Client Discussions

lj_clients

[pyesetz]
I've been looking around at the available LJ clients and not finding one that does what I want.  Do I have to write my own?  Most clients seem to think that their job begins and ends with helping me write WYSIWYG journal entries, but I find the LJ web interface is fine for that.  What I want a client for is
  • Tell me when new comments have been attached to my friends' journal entries.
  • Tell me which comments are ones I haven't read yet.  (Currently I have to squint at the dates and usually just end up rereading comments I've already seen.)
It seems to me that this is most easily accomplished by adapting a USENET reader, such as Pan, using the following analogy:
LiveJournal USENET
User login  → Server
Friend  → Newsgroup
Journal entry  → Thread-starting post
Comment  → Reply post
And so forth.  Of course, there are some differences (deleting a comment has different semantics from cancelling a reply, thread-starting posts can be edited if yours, etc.) but I suspect a decent job could be achieved by "just" replacing Pan's backend and leaving the UI pretty much the same.

And I completely out to lunch on this?
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: pyesetz
2004-08-23 12:25 pm (UTC)

Re: NNTB, Zilla #1576

I believe ownership of comments stays with the commenter, not the owner of the journal it's posted in--at least in terms of who would be asked for permission before comments can be republished.

My journal is marked "Do not block spiders".  Does this have any relevance?

I really like the rate-limiter idea, although I don't know how practical it might be to implement.  A per-IP limit of 4 comments/sec, 60/min, 1000/hr would be plenty for legitimate users, yet annoyingly inadequate to the bad guys.

I originally came to LJ because the USENET groups I used to read have become ghost towns as everyone migrates over here.  But, because of this comment situation, LJ does not offer a service equivalent to that of the competitor it has killed off.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vanbeast
2004-08-23 12:44 pm (UTC)

Re: NNTB, Zilla #1576

I believe ownership of comments stays with the commenter, not the owner of the journal it's posted in--at least in terms of who would be asked for permission before comments can be republished.

That's a bit of a grey area. My understanding has been that comments attached to an entry are derivative work, so therefore ownership remains with the poster of the original entry. Regardless of where the truth lays on the matter, it's something we have to at least give consideration.

Our spider blocking is meant for off-site spiders, so wouldn't have relevance (as it stands now) to the proposed feature. That doesn't mean that it couldn't!

At one point there was discussion about a flag you could set on your journal that would allow others to download it... for instance, I hoenstly don't care if people want a local backup of my journal. That just means people like what I write! So I could set that flag, and people could go to town.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: novalis
2004-11-20 08:02 pm (UTC)

Re: NNTB, Zilla #1576

My understanding has been that comments attached to an entry are derivative work, so therefore ownership remains with the poster of the original entry.

Rarely. A "criticism" or "comment" to something is usually not a dervative work (a work "based upon" another work). When it is, it constitutes fair use in nearly all cases.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: emarkienna
2004-08-23 05:28 pm (UTC)

Re: NNTB, Zilla #1576

I originally came to LJ because the USENET groups I used to read have become ghost towns as everyone migrates over here. But, because of this comment situation, LJ does not offer a service equivalent to that of the competitor it has killed off.

Just to say that I share these feelings..

I've often thought that NNTP is the best system for dealing with online discussions. It allows customised clients which can access the information in a machine readable format. Unlike email clients and mailing lists, you get things like threading.

But then, Usenet gets full of spam, and few people go there. There's no reason why you couldn't have NNTP servers that weren't part of Usenet, and required sign ups and had moderators in the same way that LJ and other web forums do - but sadly that hasn't happened (at least, not on a wide scale).

I think the web is just about the worst medium for conducting online discussion - you're stuck with online tools which are often slow, basic and limited compared to what offline ones could be, and you're dependant on the central server being up all the time. *Hits select-all/copy in case my web browser crashes*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)