| Username |
Post |
| SP |
Posted
on 18-May-01 12:37 PM
Just saw an interesting 'Blabber' at the Sukulgunda's Site at the following url http://www.sukulgunda.com/readnews.asp?id=320
Thanks to the author for his valuable time on writing about this site. We could definitely use some exposure! We will definitely remove the "@#%ing frame thing" during the next round of redesign but we'll have to think about getting rid of that succker tho... :)
Peace
|
| N. |
Posted
on 18-May-01 01:31 PM
if nothing else, i found the article funny.
a good laugh, in a hazy friday.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 18-May-01 02:13 PM
Dear San:
I don't know if it was necessary to give the url address of
such obscenity laden article. Yellow frame is one of the
hallmark of this site, unchanged since long, so let's keep it.
|
| SP |
Posted
on 18-May-01 03:11 PM
Dear Biswo,
I was actually debating against putting the link myself but hey it was the first time someone's written a critique about it so I made the exception.
Regarding the frame, I will be changing the frame technology which means two or more frames load up on the browser, ie. one for navigation on the left and the other for content (not sure if this is was was referred to???). In near future, I will be eliminating the frames and just have the site in one frame. Regarding the color... I'm not in a real hurry to lose it, but we'll see if we can make it better somehow.. Thinking about putting some more images... etc.
So if you or anyone has any suggestions please feel free to drop me a line. Also, we are changing our policy regarding anonymous postings in that we will be deleting all anonymous postings that have questionable criticisms and/or personal grudges in them. It's not fair to let some people hide behind anonymity and say unwarranted things about others. To those who want to post criticisms anonymously, this is what i have to say: if you want to criticize someone you better have the guts to use your own name and a valid email address, otherwise this site is not for you.
Stay tuned
Regards,
San
|
| Gandhi |
Posted
on 18-May-01 03:44 PM
>In near future, I will be
>eliminating the frames and just have the
>site in one frame.
I don't know what changes are you going to make. But the frame seems fine working with while jumping one section to another.
>if you want to criticize someone you better
>have the guts to use your own name and a
>valid email address, otherwise this site is
>not for you.
It will be a quite fair means to avoid nonsenses entering to this site and encourage healthy criticisms. I appreciate it.
Gandhi
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 18-May-01 04:04 PM
I agree with my personal friend Gandhiji that the one benefit
of frame technology is that it enables us to jump to another
sections quickly. Of course, it is not necessary to have
frame for that purpose.
I access the site from Sun Workstation mostly, using Xwindows.
It seems to have some problem with the homepage (rightside), so
the left side of frame has been of a great help to me.
As for anonymous posting, I want to hear from other people also.
There will still be some loopholes in implementations, anyway.
There has not been any instance of serious breach of our
belief on the responsibility of the readers yet(except once).
|
| SP |
Posted
on 18-May-01 04:22 PM
Dear Gandhi,
This thread can be sort of a survey regarding what users think of the frames. If it works for most people there's no need to change it. Thanks for your feedback.
Regards,
San
|
| sally |
Posted
on 19-May-01 02:56 PM
Just skimmed that link, and it's pretty hard to call it a "critique." It reminds me of this burned-out old hippie who used to hang around my college campus, really nuts, and he'd hand out pages and pages of rambling Xeroxed blah-blah full of obscenities and bizarre leaps of illogic. He called it Poetry, or sometimes Political Analysis, not a Web site critique. But anyway, I think he's morphed into an incredibly lamebrained, sexist and sewermouthed Nepali guy with a computer. 'Nuff said.
More important ... SP or someone mentioned the possibility that the web site would start filtering out comments from people who print pseudonyms, don't give an accurate email address, and print personal attacks.
So I've got a couple of questions. While I appreciate people who print their names, how do you propose to find out what's "real"? Some listserves make people sign up, with their full addresses and phone numbers. But it seems in this case that would be a limit on freedom of speech, and a discouragement to participation. And short of doing that, how do you judge a "real" name? For all anyone knows, Biswo is just an alter-ego for Ashu, Hari is really female, and I'm really Barbara Adams. A real-sounding name doesn't mean anything. And anyway, I think that on the Web, freedom of expression has to include the right to disguise your identity if you so desire.
I do include my email address, but I can definitely support someone's right not to include an address--especially any women. After all, if you run your address, it seems it potentially goes out to any other site visitor.
So I'll let you know about a little problem I've had since I started posting stuff. My email has been FLOODED with porno.
Before I started posting, I got the usual occasional porno emails. Now it seems I'm getting four or five every day. I mentioned this to someone else, who said that a GBNC web site visitor probably used my email to access a porno site, so I've now been identified through cookies (or whatever, I'm not that computer-literate) as a potential porn customer. Hence, all the emails.
Well, OK. It's not my work email, and I'm a big girl--I can always delete stuff without looking at it. But I can definitely see why women, especially, might be discouraged from posting with a requirement to hand out their emails to all and sundry.
The obvious solution would be to make GBNC a subscription site, but I think that would limit freedom of speech--and I also think it wouldn't stop the problem. As I said, I use my real first name, but that's just one of my reasons for supporting the possibility of remaining anonymous. I'm just mentioning this so that the Web site designer/s can see at least one argument in favor of allowing anonymity if the poster desires it.
Another thing. While I hate the personal attacks--and I've only seen a few of these--who gets to decide when they're too nasty to post? What are the criteria: foul language, just-plain-nasty-but-not-obscene language, libelous or potentially libelous charges, a concern that someone's feelings might be hurt? Who sets these criteria, who enforces them, and what would be the impact on the site--a one-day lag time in postings, perhaps? Just bringing those points up, since they ought to be thought through.
Pheri betaula,
Sally
|
| SP |
Posted
on 19-May-01 04:27 PM
Hi Sally,
you said:
"Before I started posting, I got the usual occasional porno emails. Now it seems I'm getting four or five every day. I mentioned this to someone else, who said that a GBNC web site visitor probably used my email to access a porno site, so I've now been identified through cookies (or whatever, I'm not that computer-literate) as a potential porn customer. Hence, all the emails."
Just wanted to point out that thesedays marketing companies collect email addresses by sending sort of 'robot' to different websites and collect email addresses found in the pages. That's probably what happened...
Regards,
San
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 20-May-01 03:19 AM
Sally wrote:
>Some listserves make people sign up, with
>their full addresses and phone numbers. But
>it seems in this case that would be a limit
>on freedom of speech, and a discouragement
>to participation.
I agree.
That is why I, for one, am wary of participating in
moderated listserves. If the moderator doesn't like
you, your postings don't get through.
>And anyway, I think that on
>the Web, freedom of expression has to
>include the right to disguise your identity
>if you so desire.
Agreed.
Very well said.
BTW, I, for one, did not think you were Barbara
Adams.
Why?
Because you write much better.
>I do include my email address, but I can
>definitely support someone's right not to
>include an address--especially any women.
Agreed.
>The obvious solution would be to make GBNC a
>subscription site, but I think that would
>limit freedom of speech--and I also think it
>wouldn't stop the problem. As I said, I use
>my real first name, but that's just one of
>my reasons for supporting the possibility of
>remaining anonymous. I'm just mentioning
>this so that the Web site designer/s can see
>at least one argument in favor of allowing
>anonymity if the poster desires it.
Yes.
>who gets to decide when they're too nasty to
>post? What are the criteria: foul language,
>just-plain-nasty-but-not-obscene language,
>libelous or potentially libelous charges, a
>concern that someone's feelings might be
>hurt? Who sets these criteria, who enforces
>them, and what would be the impact on the
>site--a one-day lag time in postings,
>perhaps? Just bringing those points up,
>since they ought to be thought through.
These were my concerns too.
You've expressed them much better.
Having dealt with a number of well-meaning and good Nepali friends who actually turned out to be autocratic monsters
when given too much power, I'm very, very wary about giving arbitrary power in a PUBLIC not-for-subscription space to any fellow-Nepali, including myself.
oohi
ashu
|
