Newsgroups can provide a user with a wealth of information at the click of a button. However, a newcommer to Newsgroups can find navigating through a group a daunting task. For some users, this task can become too laborious and may possibly turn them off to the whole experience as easily as they turn their computers off.
In the begining, I thought the net was a place to look at different pages and see a whole bunch of advertisements. Then I was introduced to Newsgroups. The introduction was a forced one, and my first impression of the whole thing was that of sheer boredom. However, as time went by and my time in newsgroups increased, I found very interesting sites and began to have a lot of fun and saw many new possibilities unfold.
My first step was to select a browser. This was a random task that really had no significance to me. I just chose the browser that sounded the best. For some, the choice is a personal one that a few take very seriously, justifying their loyalties by saying "well this is the best because of blah..blah..blah, and I hate this one because of blah..blah..blah.". To me it never developed like that. I just stay away from "Yahoo" because I don't like the name. After this easy decision came a more daunting one, which group should I look at?
A list of all the groups provided an endless supply of sites. I decided to look into the news:rec.aviation group because I love to fly. However, this was a slightly dry group because it really had nothing that I was interested in, even if I was interested in flying. I soon found myself trying to keep interested. This group was either too sophisticated for me or just not what I was looking for. I decided that my next group would be something that I could understand and get involved in.
Losing interest fast, a friend suggested to me that I look into news:rec.games to possibly find a site about a game that I liked to play, so I did. I found many games that I was interested in and actively read most of the relative discussions. It was through these different postings that I was able to preview some new games that sounded interesting. I was also able to visit other interesting pages and read some tips and comments on games.
Keeping track of all the different sites soon became a problem. Bookmarks saved the day, creating a shortcut to all my favorite sites. Day after day I would just go to my favorite bookmarked sites and read the postings. This game group was a very "nice" group and seemed to not flame or spam anyone. Although, this could be due to the fact that it was more of a discussion group that shared info between each other. I wanted to post up a few suggestions on some of the games that people were having trouble with, but I chickened out because it felt like I was bragging or something.
There are certain things observed in the interaction of people in a newsgroup. How much of a message is quoted in their postings, is the brevity rule followed, flaming, social interaction, and new threads versus follow-ups.
A quote is usually used in a follow-up message to give the reader an idea of what they are talking about. Some people will put the quote in the end of the message, but most put it in the beginning. A few people will put in the whole message in the begining, however, in general most people post a follow-up like news:alt.games.warcraft.Re:Chan Dennis G Most threads and responses are just a paragraph or two in length following the brevity rule. Flaming occurs when someone posts a thread or message that elicits a derogatory remark. For the games newsgroup, people have a different attitude and seem to not post anything that would elicit any flaming. However, some people call things "stupid" and "worthless", but most people follow-up with a suggestion as to how to look at it differently. This seems to be the norm of the two groups that I studied. While extremely different, the polite etiquette is the same for both groups. No one will argue with another person's views in a confrontational way. Everyone seems to be more mellow and understanding instead of arguementative. Observing two very different groups, I have found that a more interesting thread, one that offers more than just conversation to the reader, or one that has a topic that many people enjoy, will have a lot longer thread than one that just targets a select few people. This, however, just makes sense. Threads tend to be a lot like a big advertisement in a way, the more interesting it is and the wider target audience it has, the more popular and successful it will be.
The first few weeks of being a member of a newsgroup was like going to a party that you weren't invited to. It was like I was sitting on the couch listening to everyone's conversations and being as inconspicuous as possible. Nobody talked to me or approached me, but no one shut me out of their conversations either. I would pick up a conversation or two that caught my eye, like cheat codes or other software topics, and if I was interested, would browse about for a few minutes. If not, then I would simply click out and be done with it. This freedom was nice but I knew that it was up to me to make the first move and talk with somebody. After about two and a half weeks, I decided to respond to someone who had a problem with a certain point in a game through their E-Mail. This way I thought that I would just be helping them, so I couldn't be criticized, and it would be just between him and me. I never posted a Follow-up or Thread. I was worried if the guy would e-mail me back saying that I was stupid to suggest such a tactic, so I figured I would lose sleep over a posted message. Even though I never posted anything in the group, after I responded through e-mail, I felt like part of the gang and took on the feeling that now people were talking to me as well. "Same time tomorrow guys?"
So what is wrong with lurking? Nothing in my books. However, some people feel that lurking is like someone who goes around and looks at everyone's cards in a game of poker, but never plays the game. Who cares? The internet is many things to many people. Just because someone likes to watch a game played but doesn't like to play it, doesn't mean they should be banned from the arena. Imagine if there were no spectators at a sports game?! No multi-million dollar salaries for those players! This was a topic that interested me after browsing Lurker not a filty name from Rudy Dolfo's page.