Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale
From: tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for discussion re:: rec.antiques and rec.antique-radio
Message-ID: <+BD3W@rpi.edu>
Date: 28 Dec 89 20:30:52 GMT
References: <1078@swbatl.UUCP> <-#DC7-@rpi.edu> <1083@swbatl.UUCP>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 23

In article <1083@swbatl.UUCP> adams@swbatl.UUCP (4237) writes:
> I'm also curious about this size/second-level name perception.  Is
> there some policy on this?  Doesn't seem to be any reason to link
> the two that I can think of, except perhaps some sys file
> convenience.

Global USENET policy?  Not really.  It is indeed a sys file
convenience in some regards, but for the most part it is staying
consistent with the USENET-as-a-file-cabinet model which some people
have.  The size of the group isn't even as much of a factor as whether
it would fit better under a more specialised node so it is near (as in
sorted listings) other groups which are related to it.  This
supposedly keeps things orderly and easy for people to find, and in
general results in a more evenly distriuted tree.

There are of course many counter-examples to that and people that
don't put much stock in this particular model of the namespace.  The
existence of other anomalies, though, doesn't mean that more should be
encouraged.

Dave
-- 
   (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))