steve@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Steve Holtsberg) (07/09/85)
This newsgroup seems to be overpopulated with AMC updates. This discourages people who are not interested in AMC from reading it and posting to it. I propose that we have new newsgroups: net.tv.amc (for those AMC people) and net.tv.gh (for GH people). Any thoughts?
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (07/09/85)
In article <2137@sdcrdcf.UUCP> steve@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Steve Holtsberg) writes: >This newsgroup seems to be overpopulated with AMC updates. This >discourages people who are not interested in AMC from reading it >and posting to it. I propose that we have new newsgroups: >net.tv.amc (for those AMC people) and net.tv.gh (for GH people). >Any thoughts? It'll never fly. There is hardly enough traffic in net.tv.soaps to warrant a separate newsgroup for soaps at all, and there's certainly not enough traffic for those 2 shows to justify creating separate groups for them. From what I've seen in net.news.group (where creation of new groups is discussed), it takes a *minimum* of about 10-15 messages per week to justify a new group, and even then there has to be a real good reason for it. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "I told you when I met you I was crazy..."
jerry@uwmcsd1.UUCP (Jerry Lieberthal) (07/11/85)
> This newsgroup seems to be overpopulated with AMC updates. This > discourages people who are not interested in AMC from reading it > and posting to it. I propose that we have new newsgroups: > net.tv.amc (for those AMC people) and net.tv.gh (for GH people). > Any thoughts? YEAH! I'll go for that...
mcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (07/12/85)
> This newsgroup seems to be overpopulated with AMC updates. This > discourages people who are not interested in AMC from reading it > and posting to it. I propose that we have new newsgroups: > net.tv.amc (for those AMC people) and net.tv.gh (for GH people). > Any thoughts? I don't think it is necessary to have two new newsgroups. I am an AMC fan, but it seems to me that there have been plenty of postings for other soaps. Mike Clifford
jrgauthier@watrose.UUCP (jrgauthier) (07/12/85)
I am not an AMC fan, but I think it's a good idea for it to have its own newsgroup so I don't have to plough through all the AMC updates. I don't think there is enough GH response to constitute its own newsgroup, but that may change if it gets a group of its own and more people find out about it. To all you GH'ers out there, let's see some updates!!
bccarty@whuts.UUCP (Brian C. Carty) (07/12/85)
> This newsgroup seems to be overpopulated with AMC updates. This > discourages people who are not interested in AMC from reading it > and posting to it. I propose that we have new newsgroups: > net.tv.amc (for those AMC people) and net.tv.gh (for GH people). > Any thoughts? ...and pretty soon someone will want net.tv.dallas, net.tv.dynasty, etc. If the AMC fans are the only ones posting to net.tv.soaps, then perhaps they're the only ones really frantic about knowing what's going on. I don't think that anyone who wants to know something about another soap would be discouraged from asking or posting. Netnews readers and avid soap fans are not usually among the shy people in the world. -- Brian C. Carty AT&T Bell Laboratories Piscataway, NJ
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (07/17/85)
> This newsgroup seems to be overpopulated with AMC updates. This > discourages people who are not interested in AMC from reading it > and posting to it. I propose that we have new newsgroups: > net.tv.amc (for those AMC people) and net.tv.gh (for GH people). > Any thoughts? It would be ridiculous to create such specialized newsgroups. According to the statistics on my machine, there have been a *TOTAL* of 592 articles in this newsgroup in the just over a year that it has existed. That works out to < 1.5 articles per day of which < 50 % were AMC related articles. You can't skip over 1 or 2 articles per day that you don't care to read??? How do you ever get thru net.flame?? --> Allen <-- ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (07/17/85)
> It'll never fly. There is hardly enough traffic in net.tv.soaps to > warrant a separate newsgroup for soaps at all, and there's certainly > not enough traffic for those 2 shows to justify creating separate > groups for them. From what I've seen in net.news.group (where > creation of new groups is discussed), it takes a *minimum* of about > 10-15 messages per week to justify a new group, and even then there > has to be a real good reason for it. In the case of net.tv.soaps, the "real good reason" was the anger amongst serious TV'ers (i.e. the readers of net.tv) due to the soap updates we were posting in net.tv. --> Allen <-- ihnp4!ihuxb!alle