Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!cs.umn.edu!hougen From: hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Lets do something constructive re: *.aquaria groups Message-ID: <1990Feb20.003710.26194@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> Date: 20 Feb 90 00:37:10 GMT References: <##701$@rpi.edu> <10804@saturn.ADS.COM> <1990Feb12.091942.9791@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept. Lines: 100 In article , peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Feb13.044748.15122@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> >hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >> Don't blame the problems on the existence of 3 groups, lay the blame where >> it belongs, at the feet of the fools who argued for spotty distribution, >> and on the turkeys who listened to them. >Lay the blame at the feet of Richard Sexton, who held a grossly fraudulent >vote on the group "sci.squaria", and so disgusted a huge portion of the net >that they refuse to carry it. I think I was a little hasty with my posting. The blame actually is more widespread than either my posting or Peter da Silva's follow-up would suggest. In any case, assessing blame is not terribly constructive. What we need to do is decide, given the current unacceptable situation of numerous cross-posts and spotty distribution, what to do. Its about time the network proved that it can rise above petty squabling and undo its mistakes. If it can't, perhaps it deserves the death I always hear is imminent because no one believes the net to be worthwhile. I suggest the following steps: 1) Work to improve the distribution of rec.aquaria. To the best of my knowledge, no one objects to the idea of a mainstream aquaria group in the rec. hierarchy. Yet, as far as I can tell, this group which should be noncontroversial has a worse distribution than the controversial sci.aquaria. Reissuing the newgroup command for rec.aquaria (something which I do not have the power to do) seems to be the first order of bussiness. And if that doesn't do it, E-mail to reluctant site-admins and postings to the appropriate group(s) in the news. hierarchy should follow. BTW, I am *not* saying that all sites need to carry rec.aquaria. I simply ask that site.admins consider the merits of the group, not any personal feelings they have for some posters to and/or readers of the group. At the least, sites "downstream" should be able to receive it from their normal source for rec. groups. 2) Attempt to reach some sort of net.agreement about the existence of sci.aquaria. This should come after rec.aquaria gets appropriate distribution for a rec.* group so that there will be no question that proponents of sci.aquaria are actually trying to establish a seperate news.group. This phase can hopefully be resolved through discussion, because the guidelines don't really cover voting on an already existing news.group. On the other hand, I would be willing to risk losing the currently poorly distributed sci.aquaria for a chance at a well distributed sci.aquaria. I can only speak for myself, not for the others who participated in the voting. The result of this phase will be the issuing of either a newgroup or rmgroup command for sci.aquaria. Again, it is hoped that site.admins will respect the command, just as they would any other command (that is, regardless of politics or personality conflicts; they need not accept a newgroup command if they feel the subject matter is not something for which the machine owner would be willing to pay). 3) Do ??? in the meantime. Whether or not to crosspost (or to what extent) while the multiple-half-group situation is being resolved is very much an open question. As Richard Link has pointed out, numerous cross-posts are a pain-in-the-ass-and/or-wallet to many users (and I fall into this group as my modem at home is mercilessly slow). And as Fred Rump and others have mentioned, the cross-posting destroys the distinction between the groups. If we really feel that more than one group is appropriate (as I do), then how can we condone the lumping of them together (frightening the new aquarists and boring the more scientific among us)? Even for those people who wish to read both groups it would be helpful to have them sorted by level of scientific content. These are the arguments of people at sites receiving more than one .aquaria newsgroup. On the other hand are the people whose sites only receive one or two of the groups (and yes, I realize that the intersection of these two sets of people is non-empty). They are missing a great deal of what is going on. But, as Ben Chase asks, is cross-posting necessary? In the case of these people, it may not be *necessary* (whatever that word is even supposed to mean outside of a system of formal logic), but it does rather defeat the purpose of the network (viz. communication, IMHO) when the readers do not have access to what is being written. As a bit of an example, take the case where one person writes in and asks a question. No one responds and you don't know the answer either. A month later you come across the answer. What do you do? Post to the most appropriate news.group, hoping the asker is lucky enough to get that group? If the answer is relatively specific to a situation, then you may well have missed a good part of your target audience (and an important part, at that) as the person who originally had enough interest to ask the question may never see your answer. The flip side is an answer of general interest. But now it seems appropriate to post to everyone likely to be interested. Or you could just forget about posting the answer. Then the communication really has been thrown out the window. I'm not even sure that it makes a great deal of difference *what* you decide to do. Not only is the distribution of the three groups spotty, but there is apparently some amount of aliasing going on. Recently one poster stuck an article into sci.aquaria, but by the time it showed up on my machine it was in rec.aquaria, and the only reply to it that I have seen popped up in alt.aquaria. It also has not yet arrived at at least one site which supposedly receives sci.aquaria. Something needs to be done! Not only is it driving the fishheads batty, but it is a real black-eye for the network. Will anyone help me clear this up? Dean Hougen -- " 'You really think that, don't you? You really think about it too?', The old man scoffed as he spoke to me, 'I'll tell you a thing or two.' " - the Clash