Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: keyword-based news Message-ID: <3227@nsc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 5-Oct-85 12:30:54 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.3227 Posted: Sat Oct 5 12:30:54 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 06:15:03 EDT References: <3210@nsc.UUCP> <825@vortex.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Ninja Ewok Training Grounds Lines: 73 In article <825@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes: >First of all, Chuqui, I noticed that you ignored the second part of >my argument, where I pointed out how limited or poor keyword choices >result in many MISSED articles. Actually, I didn't ignore it, I simply didn't respond to it because I didn't feel adding more needless postings to the issue will get us almost as far as the discussions about domains have in net.mail -- nowhere. If I spend my time refuting every article on the net on a point by point basis, all I'd ever do is refute articles on a point by point basis. Where I think a clarification is neccessary, I'll clarify. Where I think someone is off base, I'll try to explain the concepts better. When a discussion turns religious, I'll bow out because I'd rather finish the design and get it implemented and SEE if it works. We can argue forever on the subject (since you seem to be against it and I seem to be for it) without convincing each other or anyone else, and the end result is a lot of words, a few bruised egos, and absolutely no results. I'd rather at least TRY the silly thing and if it doesn't work get rid of it again. I don't ignore stuff, Lauren, I just don't always respond to things because I don't want to waste the net's time and volume arguing aimlessly or reiterating things for the 400th time... >Put in too many keywords, or "inappropriate" ones, and >you get all sorts of mismatches. Put in too few, or (once again) >"inappropriate," ones and you miss most of the articles you really wanted >to see. And both these points apply both to the person choosing the >keywords to go with the article AND to the person searching for articles >of interest. In other words, there are four different modalities >of screwup in such systems, plus combinations, of course. Those modalities exist in the current news because of the way newsgroups are set up (newsgroups are just a funny flavor of keyword with very little flexibility, hooks into the database layer (sigh) and a distribution tacked on). If I don't solve that problem (and I very well may not) but simply carry them along into a new interface that gives you a new flexibility and some added power (and/or be a bit easier to use and/or a bit harder to misuse) what have we lost? If I can solve SOME of netnews problems, I will be more than happy. If I can solve ALL of them, I'll run for president or something. I think I have a chance to make things better. I'm not even trying to make things perfect... >I'm sorry Chuqui, but I've used lots of keyword systems (both commercial >and non-commercial in all sorts of different applications) and I consider >them to be a real mess. Even very elaborate, sophisticated systems >are a royal pain to use. And most of these systems don't have the >additional consideration of trying to decide what material they >can afford to pass on to other sites, and of avoiding mushrooming >of discussions into all sorts of sidetracks that can massively >increase costs. In other words, keyword systems tend not to work >very well even in centralized environments where costs are not >a significant factor. In our distributed environment, keywords >cannot replace newsgroups without causing an immense amount of >waste, hassle, and increased costs. If you could prove your assertions, why don't we all just unplug our modems and go home? If things really ARE that bad, Lauren, why haven't you just split? Rather than simply doomsaying, why can't we recognize the problems (something you seem quite good at) and try to make things better. We may well fail horribly, but doing nothing guarantees failure, and doing something may help the odds out. If you spill some milk on the floor, how do you react? Do you slit your throat for being a clumzy oaf, or you do go find your cat? Slitting your throat keeps you from spilling it again, but it creates all sorts of complications. If you find the cat, the spill can be cleaned up AND you can keep your cat happy. I'd rather go off looking for my cat, thank you -- that knife looks terribly sharp... -- :From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui If you can't talk below a bellow, you can't talk...