Is Packet Radio Too Automated?

Going back to the early days of Packet Radio and BBS access, most peopled used a simple terminal program to log onto a BBS and list bulletins. By doing so they received the full list each time they logged on. Then along came the all-singing, all-dancing automated PMS software that allowed users to scan messages on the To and From fields and automatically download them.

It was at this time, as a SysOp, I noticed a dramatic down-turn on the amount of bulletins being read. It was also around that time that there appeared to be a loss of interest in Packet Radio BBS. It could be of course some people found setting up these PMS programs too difficult and that put them off. I must admit that some of them are mighty big and in my opinion over complicated for a simple task. But then again, a lot of the fascination of Packet Radio for some was to get it working in the first place, so maybe once they had got the software running, they lost interest because there was nothing left for them to do.

So, is automated PMS software to blame for some of the loss of interest in Packet Radio? Well the answer to that question is 'yes' and 'no'. Human nature being what it is, people will always look for ways for making life easier. For instance, how many people would think of buying a TV without a remote control these days? However, if you only used the on and off button on the remote and never changed channels, you would miss a hell of a lot of programs and complain there is nothing of interest on the TV theses days. So, who do you blame, the TV manufacturers for supplying a remote control, the TV program makers or yourself for not using the remote control properly? The same thing applies to automated PMS software. If you only use part of it, or use it incorrectly, you will not get the best out of it or the medium on which you are using it.

I know of users who leave their PMS running 24/7 and maybe only check it once or twice a week to see if anything of interest has been downloaded, then wonder why they miss half the bulletins on the local BBS. I would not mind betting a large majority of those people who use Packet Radio in this way are the same people who complain that it's too slow.

So, it's not the software that is to blame, but the way it's being used (or misused). As there are no fixed To fields (another subject for debate) for Packet Radio bulletins, if a user sets up a list of bulletins to auto-download and there is the slightest deviation in the wording of those subjects, they won't get downloaded. Hence you hear the comments "There is nothing of interest". So what's the answer? Well by all means use automated software to download the regular bulletins of interest to you but, at least once a day, log onto the BBS and list the rest of the bulletins. As many will see, there is always the bright spark who will change the To field address of a thread just because he or she feels like it. So if, for instance, you have 6m in your download list and the To field gets changed to SIX you are going to miss a lot of bulletins that you may have been interested in.

When auto uploading anything up to a BBS check and check again that (a) the text is correctly formatted (b) it is correctly addressed. You would be amazed at the amount of SP messages, for example, that are incorrectly addressed. There is nothing worse than trying to read some text that is all in upper case (shouting) or badly formatted so text is all over the place. There used to be someone who uploaded information about steam engines. Although the subject was interesting, the text was so badly formatted with no C/R or paragraphs, one lost interest after the first couple of lines.

Now to my pet hate, 7plus pictures. Please, please do not follow like sheep uploading useless pictures. So often, as recently, someone buys a new toy (in this instance a key fob camera) and thinks the world is interested in his purchase, so uploads poor quality, of no use to man or beast pictures. They may well be of interest to you and you may be able to allow your PMS software to auto upload them whilst you are in bed. But think about the SysOps who have to check them and forward them sometimes over slow RF links and the users who may struggle to download them only to find they are not worth the effort. Then of course there are the clever so and so's who say "I can do better than that" so they upload an even larger file of their latest holiday snap and that's followed by an even bigger one from someone else who does not want to be out done by G9xxx. Packet Radio BBS are not a good way of sending pictures, they involve the SysOps spending a lot of time checking them, they are slow to forward and slow to download. Remember a SysOp who is maybe on the edge of closing a BBS because it's taking too much time to run may well say enough is enough if he/she has to spend ages checking pictures or is struggling to forward them.

Now call it sods law if you like but as I type this, a ten part, 8k per part set of 7+ bulletins have just arrived on the BBS from a VK station subject RUGGER that have failed to decode.

Now just imagine the frustration of a user who had he spent ages downloading that lot only to find they won't decode. Fortunately the BBS software I use decodes these 7+ files so if the don't decode they get killed.

So the conclusion is, in my opinion, automation is OK just as long as you don't rely on it completely and it's used properly. You use the manual options as well. Don't send large 7+ pictures just because you can and think they may be of interest. Chances are only a few people will bother to download them and then only if they can do it automatically. Think about others including BBS SysOps who may have poor links. Check that what you send is readable and don't send IBM ASCII graphic characters in the sig text. Not everybody uses DOS or Windows. And do people really need to know about all the equipment you are using?

George G1NNB@GB7ESX

Man, you sure hit the head on the nail! (nail on the head, hi) Although I use a tailored version of Winpack with all the bells and whistles, I never use BTW, I always use the <lr> command which brings up all bulls since the list command was last used. That way I scan the list and pick out topics of interest using what is in my head (brain) which seems to work better than the computer, hi. Yeah, basically I use it as dumb terminal software with a few scripts tossed in for performing certain TNC functions when switching between the BBS and my hardware driven (TNC based) digi and PMS.

I tend to agree, "nothing of interest" (to the software) could be a good reason for the downturn in traffic for the reasons you stated. Oh, BTW, I'm one of those "bright sparks" who sometimes change the TO and/or subject field as appropriate to the text body of the message. Frankly I hate downloading something and upon reading it I find something totally unrelated like those Rugby scores disguised as LLL comments. Yeah, I told them about it and other such things many times before, but they insist on sticking to their guns, another assinine function of Winpack along with those infernal forward arrows they use in quoting.

Yes, a properly formatted message is tops, I much prefer to write in the manner of a letter, the way I was taught in school before AOL quoting fouled it all up.

Uh huh, 7+ nonsense abounds, even Roger couldn't stem the tide, but my griping is getting long. (;->) Keep up the good work, you send many fine and helpful bits to TECH, but please avoid putting reprints too close together since it can get a bit tedious, OK? Have a great Christmas, look forward to seeing you again on packet.

73 de Warren, KB2VXA