Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!werner From: werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) Newsgroups: net.news.group,soc.singles Subject: Re: mistakes in reorganisation Message-ID: <4038@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Sep-86 02:41:16 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.4038 Posted: Sun Sep 28 02:41:16 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 00:36:54 EDT References: <12615@kestrel.ARPA> <2615@cbosgd.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas Lines: 87 Xref: linus net.news.group:5652 soc.singles:265 Summary: flawed logic in renaming decisions ??!! when Mark posts, I listen .... but some things he just wrote leave me a little uncomfortable ... I don't intend to take any sides here, but just reflect on matters aloud ... In article <2615@cbosgd.UUCP>, mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > It is indeed possible to move a newsgroup later, so none of this > is truly carved in stone. However, it is my impression that some people consider the matter "closed" and attack anyone voicing disagreement with the direction things have been moving. On the other hand, I also dislike the tone of quite a few of the complaining postings - might be a (understandable?!) sign of frustration on the part of the posters ... Is there really anything open for discussion by the "general" net-public still? Any guidelines for those that want to take part in such discussions without offending anyone or getting offending replies? (this is meant rethorically, but I hope it causes some soul-searching, but no follow-up arguments) > I would like to explain the current situation, since there seems > to be a lot of misunderstanding. [ the explanations that follow leave me more rather than less confused ...] > net.singles. Many people feel that in a totally fair world, this > should be soc.singles. However, if you look at the arbitron stats, > you'll see that net.singles is the 7th most popular group on the net. > So while the content and volume may seem characteristic of a talk > group, it's so popular that it wouldn't be right to put it into talk. I see this totally different. the high volume proves to me that there is no need for a nationwide distribution and that distribution should be restricted geographically or within "domains", like companies. but the name "talk.singles" seems fine to me. Maybe there should be a mod.soc.singles where the "Best of talk.singles" are published for wider distribution occasionally. Really, a group that becomes too popular so that the volume of postings exceeds a certain (individual) threshhold, loses in value with further increase of postings. Compare it with CB-channels with a longer range and too many people trying to talk at the same time .... > net.jokes. The same thing applies as net.singles, although net.jokes > is currently listed #2. It's too popular to put into talk. It's too popular to even read. I'd, probably, resubscribe to mod.jokes.computers though ..... > mod.philosophy.tech. This issue is really moot, because there's no > traffic in that group. Without traffic, it's impossible to judge > what volume, content, and readership would be. Furthermore, the > current situation is that mod.* will stay where they are for the > time being. Whether mod.* gets moved, and what the new names will > be, are still very much undecided. It seems to me that if the > eventual traffic proves to be of technical use to some significant > part of the net in performing their jobs, it might belong in sci. wait a second, are you saying that the tech.* groups are exclusively for job-related articles? What to one is of interest as a hobby is next man's job. I can't think of any topic for which this is more valid than for computer-related topics. With Unix, a line was drawn by using "wizard" as a distinguishing naming part and to indicate that "serious postings based on some depth in knowledge *ONLY* .." were invited, maybe it is possible to find a way to make such distinction in a more standard fashion .. > On the other hand, philosophical discussions, even if technical, > may belong in talk if their only purpose is a fun diversion ... if the reason for supporting net-wide distribution is opposed to fun diversions, by definition, I guess, one cannot disagree; but ... > net.wobegon. The only issue here is whether the net is better served > by a newsgroup (posted everywhere, and consuming a slot in the active > file), by a mailing list, or by sharing another newsgroup. net.wobegon > is low on the readership list, although certainly not at or even near > the bottom. (#158 of 216.) I guess, my only problem with "condemming" groups with low readership to a likely sudden death is that I find it so unsatisfactory that there are no decent forums for creation of new mailing-groups. ... --Werner