Xref: utzoo news.groups:28846 sci.chem:3330 sci.engr:843 sci.bio:4588 sci.engr.chem:105
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!skat.usc.edu!kriz
From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.chem,sci.engr,sci.bio,sci.engr.chem
Subject: Re: Round 2: CFD, reorganization of the misc.jobs.offered heirarchy
Message-ID: <30958@usc>
Date: 12 Mar 91 03:09:39 GMT
References: <1991Mar09.002552.29961@shl.com> <30942@usc> <7066@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@usc
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 54
Nntp-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

In article <7066@idunno.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes:
|>In article <30942@usc> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
|>)From last week's discussion the following proposal seemed to get the most
|>)support.  It would break the existing "misc.jobs.offered" news-group into:
|>)	misc.jobs.offered.sci.comp -- job offerings in CS
|>)	misc.jobs.offered.sci.engr -- job offerings in engineering
|>)	misc.jobs.offered.sci      -- job offerings in the sciences 
|>)	misc.jobs.offered          -- all other job offerings
|> 
|>)Any further comments/suggestions?
|>
|>	Sure.  This is shooting a gnat with an elephant gun.  The last
|>two arbitrons showed:
|>
|> 3 140000  3402   92%   228   465.7    11%  0.00   9.9%  misc.jobs.offered
|> 3 150000  3262   92%   384   755.7    18%  0.01  10.1%  misc.jobs.offered
|>
|>
|>	or only 612 articles over a 61 day period.  That's 10 per day folks.
|>We don't need more groups, especially since the cross posting to 
|>misc.jobs.offered will be fierce.  


Would not this be in fact a very good reason to spit the group?  There is
no reason why a non-CS major would want to read the CS listings.

Perhaps a moderator could be used to ensure that CS jobs really do get 
put into the CS group.

Or perhaps job-search groups could be put on a different heirarchy:

			sci.chem.jobs.offered
			sci.bio.jobs.offered
			sci.engr.jobs.offered

		(and corresponding groups for resumes)

			sci.chem.jobs.resumes
			sci.bio.jobs.resumes
			sci.engr.jobs.resumes

Perhaps this is the better way to go ... because it does nothing to 
disturb the existing "good thing going" for the CS/EEs on the net.

If this is the way to go ... I will pursue trying to get the *.chem.*

The way I see it, I don't see *any* reason why a non-chem major would
possibly care one way or another if the chem groups are created (the
same would go for the *.bio.* groups).  Only the *.engr.* groups would
have problems with cross-posting ... but that would be up to them to
decide on (if they chose to try to create a similar heirarchy).

dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu