Full group names

[Ocean]

Quick question - how do I get NB to show the full group names instead of the shortened versions?

[Quade]

Can't.

[Ocean]

That's a shame!

Can I request that an Option be added to the next version giving users the choice on whether to show full group names or not?

[Quade]

You can ask.

Is there any particular reason you can just substitute "alt.binaries." in your head every time you see "a.b."?

[Ocean]

Is there any particular reason you can just substitute "alt.binaries." in your head every time you see "a.b."?

Well, for one thing, there *is* a group called "alt.b". Whenever a developer decides to take shortcuts with object names, you're going to run into problems when there exists a genuine object with the same name as a shortcut version.


But in general, I like seeing things accurately the way they actually are, and I despise it when a program decides *for* me that another way is better. As I see it, there is no question that the real and accurate name appearing is an absolute requirement. Other alternatives should be explicitly optional.

Would you want a file manager deciding *for* you that it's not going to show you the real names of directories, but is going to shorten them to things like "C:\W\S32" and give you no say in the matter? I'd do a DOD wipe on that app just for spite.


Obviously, I feel rather strongly on the matter.

[richy99]

but surely its pretty obvious that newsbin is abinary downloader so the groups will contain alt.binary.*

the shortened way is just as easy to determine which groups as the actual group isnt shorted such as say alt.b.tv or alt.b.hdtv, plus it takes up less space on the screen

[Ocean]

but surely its pretty obvious that newsbin is abinary downloader so the groups will contain alt.binary.*

the shortened way is just as easy to determine which groups as the actual group isnt shorted such as say alt.b.tv or alt.b.hdtv, plus it takes up less space on the screen

Oh, I'm not arguing against having that as an option. I'm just saying that it should be an *option*. I think it's a really bad idea to not even allow the actual names to show.

With all the options NewsBin has on the list side of things (e.g. Filters, Compact View, ignore "Re", etc...), I can't believe that it doesn't have the option to show the actual group names. It has always been something that bothered me, and yet it has such an easy fix. A simple checkbox is all that's needed.

[DThor]

Well, Newsbin has a shitload of options. Some might argue too many, but Quade's got a soft heart for a good case to add yet another switch in an already cluttered Options panel(there's actually not a lot of room there for more until something fundamental changes, like adding another tab or rethinking the categories). The operative here is 'a good case', though. Throwing more options in there just because you can isn't a good reason. I think it's worthwhile if you can come up with a good reason to do it.

DT

[Ocean]

Well, Newsbin has a shitload of options. Some might argue too many, but Quade's got a soft heart for a good case to add yet another switch in an already cluttered Options panel(there's actually not a lot of room there for more until something fundamental changes, like adding another tab or rethinking the categories). The operative here is 'a good case', though. Throwing more options in there just because you can isn't a good reason. I think it's worthwhile if you can come up with a good reason to do it.

DT

By my way of thinking, showing list items with their true name is an obvious requirement for any app. I honestly don't understand why this needs to be expounded upon.

You wouldn't want a music management app replacing artist names with nicknames, or file managers turning paths into acronyms, or email clients replacing everybody's names with initials - all without giving you a choice in the matter.

To me, NewsBin is no different. No program should keep you from seeing items with their true name.


As for the cluttered Options panel, if you think it's too busy, then don't put it there. Just like you have the "Compact View" checkbox right on the posts tab, you can put a "Short Names" checkbox right on the Groups tab. Very clean and easy.

[Quade]

By my way of thinking, showing list items with their true name is an obvious requirement for any app. I honestly don't understand why this needs to be expounded upon.

Because most people don't feel the same way. It's common for people to believe "I think something so, everyone must feel the same way" but, that's just not the case. The groups have been like this for, what 5 years now? I think I've had a grand total of 2 complaints including yours. That tells me it's not a hot button topic for most people.

I've noted your comment though. Options aren't free. They all suffer from bit-rot so, I try to avoid them where possible.

[Ocean]

Because most people don't feel the same way. It's common for people to believe "I think something so, everyone must feel the same way" but, that's just not the case. The groups have been like this for, what 5 years now? I think I've had a grand total of 2 complaints including yours. That tells me it's not a hot button topic for most people.

Not complaining, and not having a problem with something are not the same thing. Heck, for that matter, not having a problem with something and whether or not it still *is* a problem is also not the same thing.

I'm not talking about my opinion versus others. I'm speaking objectively and generally - an application should not arbitrarily alter object names without the consent of the user.

I've given a number of examples in my earlier posts. You never stated that you agree with, or would be happy with any of those hypothetical situations. Most people would not, because we're talking about a general principle of app design - not a "favorite color" type of issue.

[richy99]

By my way of thinking, showing list items with their true name is an obvious requirement for any app. I honestly don't understand why this needs to be expounded upon.

You wouldn't want a music management app replacing artist names with nicknames, or file managers turning paths into acronyms, or email clients replacing everybody's names with initials - all without giving you a choice in the matter.

To me, NewsBin is no different. No program should keep you from seeing items with their true name.

im curious to know why you feel that seeing alt.binaries.tv is better/easier/more functional than just seeing a.b.tv when, afterall, we all use newsbin for binaries, we all are using binary groups, why do you have the need to see binary in the name?

once groups are organised into groups of groups, i would say the majority of people dont bother looking at the groups unless they are continuously adding/removing groups and just load up the group based on the gog name

[Ocean]

im curious to know why you feel that seeing alt.binaries.tv is better/easier/more functional than just seeing a.b.tv when, afterall, we all use newsbin for binaries, we all are using binary groups, why do you have the need to see binary in the name?

once groups are organised into groups of groups, i would say the majority of people dont bother looking at the groups unless they are continuously adding/removing groups and just load up the group based on the gog name

Not everyone uses NewsBin the same way. At times, I work frequently with groups, and have to load them individually or in small groups at a time. I don't want to have to guess at which groups are what.


After all, does "a.b" mean "alt.binaries"? Or does it mean "alt.binary"? "alt.bin"? Or "alt.b"? Perhaps "alt.binaires"? Or "alt.binairies"? "alt.binares"? Or "alt.binarie"? Or "alt.binariers"?

Every one of those groups exist, and most of those groups ARE binaries based groups.


Why it's better to see the actual name should be screamingly obvious. Just as it should be obvious that this is *not* a matter of personal opinion, but is a principle of good app design.

Look at all those groups that could be what "a.b" stand for - and remember that not only is that a tiny, infitesimal sampling, but that not all users of NewsBin are experienced, nor are they necessarily native english speakers.

I continue to be absolutely flummoxed as to why the nature of this issue is not obvious.

[Quade]

After all, does "a.b" mean "alt.binaries"? Or does it mean "alt.binary"? "alt.bin"? Or "alt.b"?

This tells me that this is just a pedantic exercise then. Clearly, you haven't actually tried it.

01alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pronstar,Global,0h : 0 m,X:\[Pssy]\
1.binaries.pictures.ebotica,Global,Never,X:\[Pssy]\
alt.binares,Global,Never,X:\[Pssy]\

[Ocean]

This tells me that this is just a pedantic exercise then. Clearly, you haven't actually tried it.

01alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pronstar,Global,0h : 0 m,X:\[Pssy]\
1.binaries.pictures.ebotica,Global,Never,X:\[Pssy]\
alt.binares,Global,Never,X:\[Pssy]\

The point is that a new user who is not familiar with what NewsBin is doing, but is familiar with the other groups isn't going to know what's going on. The shortening of names is like an inside joke - you have to know it to get it.

[Quade]

Newsbin users are too smart to be fooled by something silly like this. Most don't use groups anymore anyway. Groups are something the old timers use.

You actually have one valid group name you should have kept hitting me with. alt.b and alt.binaries will look the same. Newsbin will treat them differently though. See, you assumed blanket replacement of the first two segments but, didn't actually bother to check. It sort of pulls the rug out from under your argument.

[Ocean]

Newsbin users are too smart to be fooled by something silly like this. Most don't use groups anymore anyway. Groups are something the old timers use.

That's something of an assumption. You can't equate long time Newsbin users and what new users are going to be capable of.

You actually have one valid group name you should have kept hitting me with. alt.b and alt.binaries will look the same. Newsbin will treat them differently though. See, you assumed blanket replacement of the first two segments but, didn't actually bother to check. It sort of pulls the rug out from under your argument.

Not really. As I said, someone **not familiar** with now Newsbin works isn't going to automatically know all the internal naming rules. They'll add their groups, and then at a later point, may be confused as to exactly which groups the listed ones are.


I'll spell it out a bit more for you:

A new user goes and adds some alt.binaries groups, but they also know and are familiar with the other groups as well. The next time they start up Newsbin, they're looking at "a.b" and now are confused as to which groups exactly those are.


This is not a far fetched scenario.

[Quade]

Is it snowing where you are too? I was speculating that you were trapped at home and bored, thus this discussion.

[Ocean]

Is it snowing where you are too? I was speculating that you were trapped at home and bored, thus this discussion.

<sigh>

I brought it up initially because I thought there was an option to show the full group names, but that I had somehow missed it.

When it was cleared up that there was no such option, I asked for it to be implemented.

Everything that followed occurred because you and a few others had difficulty understanding why someone would want to see things accurately. If you want to speculate that I'm trapped in a snowstorm because I was having this discussion, I could just as easily speculate that you must be an American because of your objection to seeing things clearly and accurately.


I'm sorry if you were unduly bothered by this thread. It was not my intention to harrass anyone, only to explain a concept that to my mind shouldn't need explaining.

[Quade]

You said your piece, I acknowledged it and the topic was pretty much done. The problem is you and I both have a sickness, the "Want to get the last word in" sickness so, we keep beating a dead horse.

You second post explained why you wanted it. "Because I want it" is a perfectly viable reason. When you started saying (essentially) "think of the children!" (the new users). That was weaker. Then we started posting back and forth and I got bored. I was trying to figure out why you kept the topic going.

I haven't said no, like I said early on. I've noted your suggestion. That's about all the commitment you'll get from me.

[Ocean]

You said your piece, I acknowledged it and the topic was pretty much done. The problem is you and I both have a sickness, the "Want to get the last word in" sickness so, we keep beating a dead horse.

Believe it or not, I wasn't continuing the thread because of a desire to get the last word in. I was honestly responding to other people's posts (including yours).

You second post explained why you wanted it. "Because I want it" is a perfectly viable reason. When you started saying (essentially) "think of the children!" (the new users). That was weaker. Then we started posting back and forth and I got bored. I was trying to figure out why you kept the topic going.

I haven't said no, like I said early on. I've noted your suggestion. That's about all the commitment you'll get from me.

Then thank you for considering it, and I apologize for not being more interesting this time around.

[Quade]

See? I won't reply after this though.