Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/21/84; site styx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!styx!mcb
From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Just what is the overhead of new groups?
Message-ID: <11097@styx.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 16:26:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: styx.11097
Posted: Fri Aug 30 16:26:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 06:02:06 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA
Lines: 18

Perhaps one of the keepers of the network could explain precisely why
it is unwise to create new newsgroups. (Other than the idea of it
getting out of hand.)  It seems to me that the best way to see if a
newsgroup is viable is to try it and see if people use it.
What purpose does a moratorium (or a high "magic number") serve?
Why are new groups shot done before they are given a chance?

I understand that Usenet is suffering from signal/noise problems and
sheer volume problems. This is beyond dispute. But what is the
overhead of additional NEWSGROUPS (not additional articles)?? 
As a news co-administrator at my site, I don't see any administrative
headaches in maintaining 500 newsgroups versus the present ~ 250.
Having more newsgroups would definitely improve the signal/noise ratio
in places like net.micro and similar.

Michael C. Berch
mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb