Xref: utzoo news.groups:12404 news.misc:3629
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Re: Report Card on the success of the group creation guidelines
Message-ID: <18411@looking.on.ca>
Date: 21 Sep 89 01:11:09 GMT
References: <17735@looking.on.ca> <1989Sep20.060201.4473@rpi.edu> <45814@bbn.COM> <4402@ncar.ucar.edu>
Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 23
Class: discussion

In article <4402@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:
>   Just for the record, the purpose of the guidelines is not to be a filter
>for newsgroup quality. It is to reduce flame wars over group creations.

Yes and no.  I could reduce the flame wars pretty easily by rmgrouping
news.groups or any other place they take place, but would that be a good
solution.

Removing the flame wars is very important, but if our method does a lousy
job of picking groups, then aren't we a bit off the mark?

>that several of the "successful" groups he mentions (sci.physics.fusion,
>comp.sys.next) had their creations accompanied by massive flame wars.

The flame wars were caused by the guidelines.  I dunno about you, but
I saw immediate need for sci.physics.fusion and I was hardly alone.
What annoyed people was that it took so long to create the group that
the biggest debate in the last 2 decades of science had all but fizzed out
by the time the group got created?   The 'success' story was alt.fusion,
created in frustration, and immediately one of the top net groups from
the moment of creation.   Sci.physics.fusion is the remnant of that.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473