Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ihnp4!ihlpm!cher
From: cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov)
Newsgroups: net.sport,net.news.group
Subject: Tennis newsgroup (attn. Gene Spafford)
Message-ID: <493@ihlpm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 20:31:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpm.493
Posted: Fri Sep 20 20:31:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 06:18:08 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.sport:506 net.news.group:3807

--
I have been collecting opinions on formation of a tennis 
newsgroup (net.sport.tennis). This time the result was +14.
This of course falls short of Gene's goal of 40-50,
plus extensive discussion in existence. 
However, I would say (trying to be objective) that
the proposed group has a very good chance of being well-populated,
because tennis buffs tend to be more dedicated then 
proponents of net.bizzarre. No?

Lack of existing discussions is a factor against, but from my 
experience the only thing inhibiting me was lack of interest
in net.tv and cricket fans (no offence) in net.sport.

So, these are my thoughts on formation of net.sport.tennis,
now some general reflections:
 Having standard min of 40-50 postings/month is not justified,
because some of the most populated groups do not carry such
volume every month. E.g.: net.rec.ski is dead during north hemispere
summer. Net.coke dries off in a month. Trouble is , personalized
treatment takes a lot of time (I guess net admin does a good job
already), but on the other hand, now groups are not created wholesale
anyway.
You guessed it, my general opinion supports my special plea!
	thanks for your attention 
		Mike Cherepov (tired like hell)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com