Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sco!gorn!filbo From: filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Splitting Up Comp.Sys.Amiga Message-ID: <103.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> Date: 15 Dec 89 00:04:19 GMT References: <6073@nigel.udel.EDU> Lines: 37 X-Claimer: I >am< R Pentomino! In article <6073@nigel.udel.EDU> Eric J. Peterson writes: >Here is a proposed division of the current C.S.A* group ... > comp.sys.amiga -- For miscelaneous or other short postings [...] > comp.sys.amiga.tech -- Same as the current group [...] > comp.sys.amiga.hardware -- [...] > comp.sys.amiga.art -- [...] > comp.sys.amiga.questions -- Similar to comp.unix.questions [...] I don't think it's necessary to break the group up into that many pieces, yet, and I think it would be fairly difficult and flame-festish to get that many groups approved through the newsgroup creation mechanism (voting by the net at large). I read the last 100 articles locally spooled to comp.sys.amiga and decided whether they would be more appropriate for a .hardware group, a .games group, a .art group, or would not fit any of those categories. The 100 articles totalled 183K. 24 articles totalling 56K would belong in a .hardware group; 10 totalling 23K would fit .games, and 13 totalling 21K would fit .art: category art size art% size% --------- --- ---- ---- ----- .hardware 24 56 24 31 .games 10 23 10 12 .art 13 21 13 11 other 53 83 53 45 This makes comp.sys.amiga.hardware look like a very good idea -- offloading 30% of comp.sys.amiga's traffic. A group combining games and art (.rec?) would take another 20%. Separate groups for games and art don't appear justified at the moment. Anyone want to sponsor a .hardware vote? Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us CI$: 73047,1112 (slow) @ * * // belal@sco.com ..ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal} R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +408-476-4633 and XBBS +408-476-4945