> This is what kill files were for, which every half-decent news reader of the time had (something that's still lacking in most contemporary web forums).

...that just didn't work, as I even wrote: with active trolls _most_ threads had the troll somewhere in them. They tended to dominate the groups and saturate everyone else's time.

> Web forums were also a lot easier to use. You didn't need to download or learn to use a news client. All you needed was a web browser, which everyone already had and knew how to use.

Oh, and frequently had better moderation. Maybe because of accumulated experience, or maybe because they were less cliquish than usenet was.

> If Usenet was better integrated in to the web, it might have stood a chance.

Usenet better integrated with the web is called a web forum. Some, like Discourse, are even pretty good, they're far easier to set up than a non-alt usenet group. The one thing going for Usenet is modempunk nostalgia.

> This is what kill files were for, which every half-decent news reader of the time had (something that's still lacking in most contemporary web forums).

Agreed, but the problem was that every new user began with an otherwise empty killfile. And so they had to be quite thick-skinned to outlast the barrage long enough to build up a respectable kill file to quash the noise, spam, and trolls.

Unfortunately what often happened is the new user was overwhelmed, disappeared, and never returned.

> No, the real challenge that Usenet faced was the World-Wide Web. People were enamoured with the new shiny, with hypertext, and with embedded pictures and styling, which Usenet did not have.

This had a very significant effect. The draw of the web, new, shiny, and fancier than plain text Usenet postings, had a huge effect in cutting off the influx of new users to replace those who disappeared.