Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The disservice of pushing for sci.aquaria
Message-ID: <49578@looking.on.ca>
Date: 18 Nov 89 17:31:34 GMT
References: <9660002@hpcuhb.HP.COM> <1989Nov17.013629.5020@NCoast.ORG>
Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 23
Class: discussion

The problem is that the top-level hierarchies, which supposed to be
topic categories, were actually created mostly to be distribution
hiearchies.

And while I have said all along that the problems we are having stem
from people trying to treat the hiearchies as distributions, perhaps I
have been wrong.  Perhaps the problems stem from people try to treat them
as topics.   (An honest mistake, given their names.)

More correctly, problems come when we treat them as both.  But think about
it, what kind of "topic" is "talk?"  It's a pure distribution, not a topic
at all.

We should go to one of two extremes.  On one end, we could create true
distribution categories, from 'high' to 'low' or even 'comp', 'biz-tech',
'rec-tech', 'rec', 'talk' (reflecting, in part, the type of sites on the net.)

On the other end we could decide to remove distribution from the names
completely, unless it is desired by the readers and creator of the group.
(As is the case with a local group like usa.politics)

-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473