Xref: utzoo news.groups:16004 comp.sys.amiga:46538
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!sco!gorn!filbo
From: filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: comp.sys.amiga.questions
Message-ID: <123.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Date: 30 Dec 89 07:03:36 GMT
References: <7049@nigel.udel.EDU> <57b.02t179Uh01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Followup-To: news.groups
Lines: 58
X-Claimer: I >am< R Pentomino!

In article <7049@nigel.udel.EDU> Eric Edwards writes:
>The problem is that questions often generate discussions, hense there would be
>a lot of cross posting.   Perhaps a comp.sys.amiga.novices might be more
>effective.  This would limit the group to questions that could be answered
>by one or two postings.

In article <57b.02t179Uh01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Dave Lowrey writes:
>This would be a big mistake! Who would subscribe to a "novice" group?
>Novices, that's who. And who would answer their questions? Other novices?

>The same goes to groups about hard disks, printers, etc. The general
>attitude would be  "I don't have much time, and my hard drive works
>fine, so I won't subscribe to the hard drive group anymore..."
>You have now lost another expert (well, at least another opinion).

>The same even goes for games. I know several "serious" programmers who
>own only one game "Sim City". Would they have found out about it if
>it was posted to a "games only" group? Probably not.

>So, my 2 cents, for what it's worth, says.... Keep it all in one group!
>You may have to wade through several articles you aren't interested
>in, but you may be suprised by finding something out you never would
>have found if it had been stuck out in some special interest group.

So what you're saying is, "keep everything I'm interested in in one
group, and the heck with what anyone else is interested in".  Don't you
think the Macintosh and IBM PC and VMS groups should all be merged with
comp.sys.amiga, as well?  You may be surprised what you'll learn!

It is much easier for you to read multiple groups that interest you than
for someone who is not interested in all areas to eliminate the
uninteresting areas from a single large group.

If you're worried about quality/quantity of replies to a worthwhile
question, well, think about this: an unanswered question is a lot more
obvious in a small group.  In a large group, messages get ignored in the
sheer flow.  I've asked 3 or 4 times now: where is Eric Haberfellner;
what is the latest version of HandShake, and have never received a
reply.  This wouldn't happen in a smaller group.

I do agree that a .novices group is a bad idea -- no better than
.questions, .discussion, etc. that have been suggested.  All of these
would just painfully parallel the main group, generating lots of
cross-posting.

>Remember: there is always the 'k' key!

Here is where you're the most wrong.  Many people use rn, nn, etc.,
"modern" newsreaders.  Some receive news as digests, some use old
software, etc., and CANNOT easily ignore particular classes of articles.
They must consciously dismiss every article they don't want to read.
You might as well say "Let them eat cake!".

Followups once again directed to news.groups...

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