Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: CALL FOR LOCAL DISCUSSION: Split the c.s.a group more? Message-ID: <1990Oct17.185635.22710@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 17 Oct 90 18:56:35 GMT References: <7809@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <13218@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <1375@crackers.clearpoint.com> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 70 jeff@fang.clearpoint.com (Jeffrey J. Griglack) writes: > I do not feel that c.s.a should be split at all. I only get 100 to 150 > articles a day now. Over the weekend (Friday morning to Monday morning) > I had only about 490 total. Now, it may be a little cumbersom to have to > wade through that many articles, but it is not all that bad. That is > what the k (kill in 'rn') is for. If c.s.a is the only group you read, that may not be a burden to you. For many of us, it is one of dozens, and 100 articles a day is a severe problem; thus the repeated (for years now) calls to subdivide the group. That's what we're about. Moreover, many who read this group, or want to read it, can only access it by mail. I helped one European BITNET user get hooked up to c.s.a, and he had to cancel his subscription in four days; the volume simply overwhelmed him. Arguments that "my newsreader makes this easy" do not apply to the net as a whole, and should not be considered, or raised, when trying to decide how to reorganize the c.s.a groups. Comp.sys.amiga is read on BITNET, vmsnet, and potentially any net that supports email access to USENet; we shouldn't use a parochial viewpoint of the universe as an extended VAX cluster running BSD 4.3 and rn when deciding whether or not group volume is a problem. > Every once in a while I find something of interest in a thread that I > would not normally follow. If those threads where shuffled off to other > to other groups I would never see them. I have to believe that I am like > many other readers in this reguard. I never read c.s.a.games. Well, that is a choice you make. If a great thread came up today in c.s.a.games, you'd miss it. Same with other groups; if you decide not to read comp.sys.amiga.drivel, and someone posts a message there showing how to quintuple the speed of your A1000 with $5 of parts and an hour's labor, you missed out. BUT, if the group is split, there is _nothing_ to prevent your site carrying, and you subscribing to, _all_ the subgroups, and still seeing all the same articles, just a little better organized. I think this is a bogus argument against reorganizing c.s.a, and I'd like not to see it raised again unless with some proof that it means anything. > Another reason why not to break up the group is indecision. How do you > know where your particular thread belongs? Does a discussion about word > processors belong in the general group of multimedia? If the word > processor can handle pictures, isn't that multimedia? That is the purpose of crossposting. About 1/20th of the articles posted to c.s.a are crossposted to another group, presumably because the poster thought the article was of both general and specific interest. This is a non-problem, also. > If it comes to a vote, I will vote 'no' unless someone can convince me > otherwise. Well, I tried, but every newsgroup proposal garners some negative votes, so follow your conscience. Just please consider that the proposals are for the good of the readership as a whole, not just of you in your narrow environment; an organization of the groups that makes them easy for you to read may not make it easy for people to read what you post; you have your hands on a two edged weapon. > I feel that splitting the group will just add to the confusion and will > probably not slow the traffic on c.s.a. Well, if I get my way, that is one thing I can guarantee, since with the introduction of c.s.a.misc, c.s.a will no longer exist as a place to post or read news. Kent, the man from xanth.