Stupid Designs
Feb. 3rd, 2010 11:48 amJust left a comment on BenWerd's blog post here and was surprised to notice that there's no way to receive email notifications whenever a reply is left to it.
Which strikes me as the quickest way to discourage discussion I can think of.
The alternative it provides is an RSS feed, which is staggeringly less efficient - it means that I have to have an RSS feed for each discussion I want to pay attention to, and that each person who wants to scan discussions has to set this up (which is a lot of clutter) - and then the server will get hit on an hourly basis (or more often) on discussions that aren't generating any new comments.
Which strikes me as the quickest way to discourage discussion I can think of.
The alternative it provides is an RSS feed, which is staggeringly less efficient - it means that I have to have an RSS feed for each discussion I want to pay attention to, and that each person who wants to scan discussions has to set this up (which is a lot of clutter) - and then the server will get hit on an hourly basis (or more often) on discussions that aren't generating any new comments.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 11:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 11:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 11:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 12:11 pm (UTC)I've watched this sort of thing happen elsewhere, and I fail to see why I should participate in discussions where the code can't manage emailed notifications and the option to thread comments.
I've already done dial-up BBS stuff, ta.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 01:48 pm (UTC)Even if email weren't quite so standard, and there were (say) ten competing push protocols for this sort of notification, you'd probably be able to find a single server program which would support them all, and then you'd only have to set that up once no matter how much stuff you wanted to keep up with – and there wouldn't be the need to choose a poll frequency at all.
(And I expect there'd be websites to run that server on behalf of people without the resources/skills to run it themselves; the end user would have to poll that one website, but that's still a reasonably bounded amount of work.)
no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 02:09 pm (UTC)I have a life (no, really...) to be getting on with, and polling (as in going to look at, rather than furtling the browser to manage it) a set of websites seems to be a bit of a waste. (Assuming yr personal email-handling routine just sets a flag, etc.)
no subject
Date: 2010-02-03 02:23 pm (UTC)There's a certain amount of irony to this requirement, because I seem to remember a huge buzz around web-based push systems in around 1998 ...
no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 01:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-04 09:50 am (UTC)Off LJ, I just add the comment feed in Google Reader. Since that's set up to show only the feeds with something in them, it's not like I care about pruning my subscriptions for conversations which have died. Since feeds are inefficient but have caught on anyway, I don't see why a comment feed is much worse than a feed of postings.
I don't know whether Google has some sort of back-off algorithm for feeds which become quiet. Certainly it should be well behaved about using E-tag and If-Modified-Since. If the server is similarly optimised (which LJ isn't, ISTR), the bandwidth demand from a quiet feed is quite small.