Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!sri-spam!gds
From: gds@sri-spam.ARPA (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: Suggestions for talk.* groups follows
Message-ID: <5816@sri-spam.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 26-May-86 19:02:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-spam.5816
Posted: Mon May 26 19:02:22 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 28-May-86 01:45:35 EDT
References: <5500@alice.uUCp> <5806@sri-spam.ARPA> <13964@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.news.group:5740 net.news.adm:750
Summary: Arguing about what to call which group does not solve the problem

In article <13964@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>    How do statistics prove what is "soapbox"? "Soapbox" has never been
> defined in a satisfactory way. Thus postings like that of "jj".

For the purposes of limiting volume, "soapbox" has been determined (to
the satisfaction of the backbone) as having high volume and low content.
The statistics taken by Brian Reid, in addition to the biweekly news
stats, seem to bear this out.

> ... arguments on the named newsgroups ...

>      I am glad you are going to carry the talk.* groups. But the point is
> which groups are going to be on the talk.* list, and why. This is the point
> which you keep missing.

You are missing the point I am trying to make (see below).

>     "JJ" can speak for himself, but I must say I don't see *your* point.
> The discussion is over what goes on the talk list. You seem to think this
> is obvious. It isn't. You should try to give clearly argued reasons if
> you think the list has been decided on correctly.

>     This position is not really consistent with supporting the creation of
> the "talk" category. Do you support it? What are you trying to say?

I do not believe the list has been decided on correctly.  I would not
lump net.motss in the same category (in terms of SNR) as net.politics.*,
net.religion.*, etc., but that's not really the point of this and my
previous message.  As far as the creation of the "talk" category goes, I
think the best idea I have seen is subdivision of groups according to
what type of group they are (tech, rec, club, etc.).  But the real point
I'm trying to make is that rather than us all arguing about what groups
to put or not to put into talk.* or whatever, we should be seeking
solutions to cut volume, or implement mechanisms that will allow the
volume to increase without it becoming a strain on the backbones.

Just because a group is going to talk does not mean it will be cut off
altogether from the net.  Likewise, a group not going into talk does not
mean sites will continue to carry it.  My statements such as "let each
site do as they wish and are able" mean that arguing about group
classification is ridiculous in terms of it being directly related to
limiting volume (as pointed out by Laura, newsgroup limitation can, and
is already being done).  All this heat generated over net.motss, talk.*,
etc., is just wasted bits, because it only adds to the problem of net
volume.  I think this is the point you are missing -- that we need to
address the problem of net volume in a way that the backbones will be
able to cope with.  Arguing over what to call a group won't solve the
volume problem.

--gregbo