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 cad.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!cad!hijab
From: hijab@cad.BERKELEY.EDU (Raif Hijab)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: Suggestions for talk.* groups follows
Message-ID: <393@cad.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 22-May-86 16:21:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: cad.393
Posted: Thu May 22 16:21:09 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 21:39:48 EDT
References: <5500@alice.uUCp> <2157@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: CAD Group, U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.news.group:5666 net.news.adm:738
Summary: Defining Top Level Categories

In article <2157@cbosgd.UUCP>, mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes:
> 
> I'd like to emphasize that this is NOT a fait-accompli.
>
> the general plan to move some set of groups is unlikely to change.
 
??

> It has been suggested that we ought to use this upheaval to complete
> the reorganization, dividing the rest of net.all into a few more top
> level categories (tech, sci, rec, and club have been mentioned as some
> possible categories, for example.)  In this sense, perhaps we should
> include any group in talk which fits that description better than any
> of the others.
 
One top level category you have neglected is *soc* for social issues.
This would include for example net.philosophy, net.politics, net.religion,
> net.women, net.singles, net.motss and net.origins 
I believe most of the discussants in this group take their postings and
replies seriously, and try to learn/educate in the process. The performance
can be improved upon, but I -for one- have learned a lot both from other
people's postings and from researching for my own.

> Trying to decide what goes into that list is difficult, and the
> metrics we've used are basically high cost, low readership, and
> low content.  

Mark, I really would like to know what your criteria are for
*low content*.