Xref: utzoo news.groups:12406 news.misc:3631
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!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: <18581@looking.on.ca>
Date: 21 Sep 89 07:27:15 GMT
References: <17735@looking.on.ca> <9646@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 16
Class: discussion

I'm not saying it's a perfect criterion, just one of the few semi-objective
criteria that we have available.

Yes, I think many low-readership groups have merit, and I read some.  But
what we're after here is a method to decide what groups to create on almost
*all* machines.

Now if a group isn't even going to have any readers on 2/3 of the machines
on the net, one can argue that it is not a good group to carry on all
machines.  Still a good group to carry on some, no doubt.  Yes, sometimes
you carry a group your machine doesn't want, but there is a limit to that.

Why else do the 'vote'/surveys try to guage 'interest' in a group, if not
to answer a criterion like the above?
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473