Xref: utzoo news.groups:17860 sci.aquaria:417 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!bridge2!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!turnkey!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!electra!oleg From: oleg@electra.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev) Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.aquaria Subject: Re: sci.aquaria.birdfeed (was: Guppies) Message-ID: <3485@oolong.la.locus.com> Date: 17 Feb 90 03:07:06 GMT References: <##701$@rpi.edu> <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> Sender: news@locus.com Reply-To: oleg@electra.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) Followup-To: news.groups Distribution: usa Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA Lines: 53 >a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. You are wrong. The groups propagations are not identical and there are large gaps of discontinuity in ALL of the aquaria groups that make cross-posting necessary. >b) Would most authors really be happy to choose just one of the >*.aquaria groups? ... 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? No, they don't. ALT.aquaria doesn't and that's why there was a call for SCI.aquaria. REC.aquaria doesn't and I have no idea why, but at least *this* site does not always get one or the other group's full traffic. Some sites do not carry ALT.aquaria, some don't carry REC.aquaria, some do not carry SCI.aquaria. The safest thing to do is x-post to all of them. It costs the same to transmit as an article posted to one group only and is much more likely to deliver the article to the readers. >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? Because I am not happy about replying to a followup of an article I had never seen. People ask questions and expect answers. If I do not see the question, how can I answer it?! And yes, the extra audience. Some of the postings made to .aquaria groups are of interest to all people reading these groups. Why should they be denied the ability to read it just because some self-righteous self-appointed crussaders have screwed up the distributions? >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. Eat your sarcasm, Ben. There are some people on USENET who can't find FAMA and some who don't even know it exists. "Every soul" does not need to subscribe to these groups and could hit the "n" key. >Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and >alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. Wrong. I have seen a lot of evidence of just the opposite. DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself only, unless otherwise indicated. "No regrets, no apologies" -- R.Reagan Oleg Kiselev lcc!oleg@seas.ucla.edu (213)337-5230 ...!{att|ucla-se|turnkey|alphacm}!lcc!oleg