Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!sppy00!glf From: glf@sppy00.UUCP (Hill) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Splitting Comp.Sys.Mac again (was Re: Too many messages in ....) Message-ID: <709@sppy00.UUCP> Date: 8 Feb 90 21:29:17 GMT References: <629@ascom.UUCP> <38387@apple.Apple.COM> <1603@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> <38392@apple.Apple.COM> <76758@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Reply-To: glf@sppy00.UUCP (Greg Feldman-Hill) Distribution: usa Organization: Online Computer Library Center, Dublin, Ohio. Lines: 33 In article <76758@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> RD Francis writes: >I have seen a couple of postings now suggesting large numbers of new c.s.m >groups. Maybe I'm nuts, but perhaps we should try a relatively simple >solution ... > I tend to agree. It seems that the smaller you make the sub-units, the more overlap you're likely to see. People will make their own individual decisions about where things "really" go (and so postings with similar topics will end up in a variety of sub-groups depending on personal preference). In this case, the sub-groups will loose their meanings, AND people who like to scan all the topics to get a broad view of Mac events will have to start following threads across all groups (Oh, what a tangled web we [would] weave ...) For the most part, discussions tend to center around specific issues, such as hardware, software (using products), getting help, etc. and general or philosophical issues such as future wishes, new Apple law suits, design considerations and the like. I'm not really suggesting that two groups is enough (or these two groups even), but it might be wise to keep the groups broad enough to be meaningful and easy to use. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Greg Feldman-Hill {seismo|cbosgd}!osu-cis!sppy00!glf -or- glf@sppy00.UUCP OCLC - Online Computer Library Center ... Dublin, Ohio "... blah blah blah ... nothing clever to say today ... blah blah blah ..."