Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 6/7/83; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Newsgroup Births and Deaths: Here we go again (and again ....)
Message-ID: <969@hao.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-May-84 16:07:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.969
Posted: Mon May 14 16:07:46 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 03:58:58 EDT
References: <932@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 64


  Chuqui has hit the nail on the head: we *should* delete new topics that
don't make the grade, "WHATEVER THE GRADE IS DEFINED TO BE" (words Chuq's,
emphasis mine). I think we need to determine some sort of rigid criteria
for newsgroup survival. I personally agree with Chuq about wobegon, why
should one radio show have its own top-level group? I remember the screams
when someone created net.gdead and the Deadheads started using it. Somehow,
that group got killed off, and now the Dead articles are buried in the morass
that has become net.music, which I no longer have time to read. Therefore,
because people so adamantly oppose both the creation and deletion of 
newsgroups, I miss many articles I might like to read, just because I don't
have hours every night to 'n' the other articles. I personally feel we need
*more* groups. Therefore, I make the following suggestions, first admitting
my almost total ignorance of how the news software really works, and hence
I don't know if there are good reasons for not doing some of these:

   1) Increase the limit on the number of newsgroups, together with making
      the readnews search of this mysterious "active" file more efficient
      (how about sorting the active file so efficient binary searches could
      be used by readnews?). This might help eliminate some of the objections
      to creation of subgroups.

   2) Implement Adam Bushbaum's recent comment: when a new topic is created,
      see if there is an old one that could be deleted to make room for it.

   3) Discourage creation of very specific top-level newsgroups (such as
      net.wobegon or net.gdead), while encouraging the creation of subgroups
      for active topics that fit naturally on the newsgroup tree (such as
      net.music.rock and net.sport.baseball), thus *encouraging* discussion
      of less common topics due to less articles that have to be 'n'ed in
      the parent group (like jazz in net.music or tae kwan do in net.sport).
   
   4) (Enter flame-attraction mode) Implement some sort of automatic deletion
      of newsgroups after a certain period without use and/or with minimal use,
      and with manual intervention in cases where multiple groups exist for 
      the same topic (as in the net.music and net.records debate). Also, avoid
      creation of groups like this.
   
   5) (more flames) ORGANIZE THE CREATION OF NEWSGROUPS. While this may sound
      like USENET, Inc., that isn't what I am suggesting. I'm not sure exactly
      what it is I *am* suggesting here, I'd just like to get the creative
      juices flowing. I would like to see some small group of people,
      maybe just one at a time, be responsible for creating and deleting 
      newsgroups. Maybe we could elect a Newsgroup monitor with voting by
      Email? Maybe this is a rotten idea, but almost anything would be better
      than the endless, boring debates (with the same people always on each
      side of an issue, myself included) that usually result in someone
      unilaterally creating the wrong group, as in net.music.classical. What
      we really needed was net.music.rock, so that net.music wouldn't be
      swamped with rock articles, stifling discussion of other types. Creating
      net.music.classical solves the problem for classical music types, but
      what about jazz? Blues? They will still be swamped, and there are still
      too many articles in net.music for me to read (the recent summary I saw
      in mod.ber claimed over 20 articles a day!). What we really need is some
      sort of clearly stated, easily appliable rules for creation and deletion
      of groups. I have some ideas, and if I ever have time, I will post 
      some of them in a future posting, but this is getting long.

				 GREG
-- 
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
       		        !hao!woods
   
   "Will we leave this place an empty stone?"