Xref: utzoo rec.aquaria:429 alt.aquaria:6062 news.groups:17717 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rice!brazos.rice.edu!bbc From: bbc@libya.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) Newsgroups: rec.aquaria,alt.aquaria,news.groups Subject: Re: sci.aquaria.birdfeed (was: Guppies) Message-ID: Date: 13 Feb 90 16:40:06 GMT References: <##701$@rpi.edu> <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> Sender: root@rice.edu Reply-To: Benjamin Chase Followup-To: news.groups Distribution: usa Organization: Center for Research on Parallel Computations Lines: 49 In-reply-to: hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu's message of 13 Feb 90 04:47:48 GMT hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >3. The duplications in the three newsgroups are made necessary by a number >of numbscull site.admins who refuse to carry one or more of the groups. Most >authors would be happy to stick their article in the one group in which it >best fits, saving cross-posting for those rare occasions where the subject >matter fits equally well in two or more groups. But, thanks to the afore- >mentioned idiots, following that quite reasonable procedure results in the >article's not getting everywhere that it should. Thus, many articles get >cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end >will recieve them. Let's question a few assumptions in this paragraph, lest someone accidentally confuse them with truths. a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. b) Would most authors really be happy to choose just one of the *.aquaria groups? (First it may help to define "most authors". Offhand, I would say that Richard S. and Oleg are "most authors" in *.aquaria by at least one metric. :-) If authors really would be happy picking one group, why are there currently so many cross-posts between alt.aquaria and rec.aquaria (this thread being only one of many)? Don't both of these groups have good propagation? c) "[Posting to just one *.aquaria group] results in the article's not getting everywhere that it should." But to where _should_ an article get? Everywhere? Why? Because the author needs the extra audience, and hence attention? Because they want it to? d) "many articles get cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end will recieve [sic] them." Is the typical message delivered on *.aquaria so burningly important that every soul must be reached? If so, perhaps a aquarist magazine such as FAMA, etc., would accept it for publication, and then the author would even be able to reach those unfortunate people without any access to USENET. >1. The groups are not intended to be redundant... >Alt.aquaria will be redundant when the sci and rec groups get proper >distribution, and should be eliminated at that time. Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. It may be beneficial to cross-post between alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria, since sci.aquaria has poor propagation. When and if sci.aquaria gets propagated better, then alt.aquaria will be redundant. -- Ben Chase , Rice University, Houston, Texas