[net.general] Destroying Unused Newsgroups: A Proposal

lute@abnjh.UUCP (J. Collymore) (12/21/83)

In an article I read recently posted to the net some good comments were made
concerning the removing news groups that do not show any (or little) activity.
I agree that this MUST be done.  The list of newsgroups is overwhelming, even
for an established netnews user such as myself.  And when I try to get new
users in my system interested, they are usually put-off, or confused by the
numerous, hair-split groups.  ( certainly don't envy Adam Buschbaum who tries
to keep track of all of this for us.)

Anyway, understanding that if a newsgroup is neglected, it is to be permanently
retired, I propose the following system:

1)	Any newsgroup that is of obvious short-term interest (e.g. tv.da for
	discussions on "The Day After") should be discouraged.  Keeping such
	discussions in the major newsgroup (e.g. net,tv) should be
	sufficient to meet people's needs.


2)	Newsgroups that are seasonal should be given one year (or two passes
	of the particular season) to see if there is truly interest in that
	newsgroup.  For example, if net.rec.ski were a new newsgroup, it
	should be given two winters to see if there are people really
	interested in this group.  If there was little activity by the end of
	the second winter, the newsgroup would be automatically dissolved.

	NOTE:  THE REQUIREMENT FOR REMOVAL OF A NEWSGROUP FROM THE NET WOULD
	BE TWO OR LESS ARTICLES POSTED PER WEEK TO THE NEWSGROUP IN QUESTION.
	FOR SEASONAL NEWSGROUPS, THIS RULE WOULD ONLY APPLY DURING THEIR
	PARTICULAR SEASON.  FOR ALL OTHER NEWSGROUPS THIS RULE WOULD BEGIN
	THE WEEK OF THEIR CREATION, AND THEIR WOULD BE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD
	OF FOUR MONTHS.

If there are any of you with other comments, please post them to 
net.news.group, or mail to me.  Maybe we can resolve this issue.


					Jim Collymore

guest@onyx.UUCP (12/29/83)

I concur with the suggestions for pruning unused subgroups.
In addition, I would like to suggest that news would better
be kept in full hierarchical form similar to the way that
many Bulletin Board Systems do. To get the flavor of how
that works out, try Big Tree "Stuart II" BBS in California
at (408) 338-9511, a small BBS where the natives are friendly.

It seems absurd to me that, given we're all using Unix and its
widely acclaimed tree structured file system, we force news into
such an awkward shape: a two level tree. Why not an N-level tree?
I'm tired of jumping around trying to find followup messages, or
reading sequentially and keeping track of 30 discussions in parallel.
Fleshing the structure out to a full tree (hopefully with colateral
links for cross-referencing) would help greatly in keeping track of
each of our interests.
	Doug Merritt

P.S. I'm not fully up on the net yet, so meanwhile replies directed here
(...!amd70!onyx!guest) will reach me. In about a month I'll be at
...!amd70!onyx!molecular!doug.