Xref: utzoo news.groups:2345 comp.sys.amiga:13518
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!pds
From: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: An alternate method of splitting high volume groups
Message-ID: <559@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jan 88 21:10:32 GMT
References: <22603@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 61
Summary: The benefits of the more radical approach seem to exceed the
	 more conservative approach of splitting groups.

In article <22603@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) writes:
> Among the responses received so far on the split comp.sys.amiga vote, there
> has been a remarkable number of "write-in" votes for a much more radical
> approach.  The exact details vary, but they are all quite close in
> principle.  Basically they are saying: "I'd like to see it split MORE
> ways".
> 
> So the split for c.s.a would be something like:
> 
> 	comp.sys.amiga	- no postings, just a root for the keywords
> 	".hardware      - postings that somehow discuss hardware
> 	".software      - ditto software
> 	".misc          - nothing else applices
> 	".A2000		- Amiga 2000 specific
> 	".A1000		-   "	1000
> 	".A500		-   "	500
> 	".tech
> 	".novice
> 	".applications
> 	".programming
> 	".audio
> 	".video
> 	".religious
>        [".reviews
> 	".marketing
> 	".questions
> 	".games]
> 
> Etc, etc, etc. The more the merrier. Cross-posting is to be *encouraged*.

I can't comment on the cost of splitting up groups this finely, but I
imagine the benefits would be MUCH greater.  I imagine that most
readers of comp.sys.amiga would subscribe to some proper subset of all
the subgroups listed here.  I also imagine that most c.s.a readers
would read both of the groups proposed in the more conservative
proposal.  Maybe I'm wrong.

So here's a poll for c.s.a readers:

	a)  would you read all of the c.s.a subgroups mentioned above?

	b)  would you read both of the groups in the formal proposal?

	c)  <extra creadit>  how many of the 17 subgroups mentioned
	    above would you read?

Please mail to me, and I'll tally and post the results in a couple of
weeks.

Unfortunately, the results of this poll won't be conclusive.  Even if
everybody says they'd only read 3 subgroups, if all articles are posted
to one of those 3 groups, then everyone still reads all the articles.
It's going to depend on posters (and follow-upers) to keep the groups
posted to topical, as mentioned in the posting I'm following up.

For all you net.oldtimers:  has something like this ever been tried?
How well did it work?
-- 
-Peter Schachte
pds@quintus.uucp
...!sun!quintus!pds