stevenm (12/05/82)
The Problem ----------- I am very worried about the proliferation of extremely-special-interest newsgroups on the network. Many/most special interest groups are "flashes in the pan", where discussion is heavy to moderate for a few weeks before interest dies off to nothing. We have recently been lamenting about this proliferation, and discussing the need for 'spring cleaning' of newsgroups. This is the sort of newsgroup that will need removing in a few months. The Symptoms ------------ I am annoyed that anyone who gets 10 or 20 replies to a "let's create a new group" query feels that he or she is entitled to create a new group, and broadcast special-interest information to a network of several hundred sites. Take for example a recent article: I've received 22 replies. They break down into: 18 - in agreement, ranging from mild curiosity to enthusiasm 3 - suggested using net.misc (2 of whom referred to a previous discussion about a net.psi) 1 - strongly against, stated that such a group has "no basis for reasonable discussion" I imagine the number of yes votes is of the same order of magnitude as that received by other groups voted into existence so we should go ahead and create the group. I feel that a response of 22 out of a network of 300 sites (and possibly 6000 readers) is insignificant, and that the creation of a new newsgroup on the basis of this response is absurd. For a reader population of 22, a mailing list is a much more reasonable approach that a network newsgroup. Solutions --------- There are several possible solutions to this problem. Unfortunately, most of them require changes in netnews software. 1) Allow only selected sites (ucbvax,cbosg,decvax,etc) to create newsgroups. Appoint network administrators at these sites who are resonsible for creating groups when they are called for. 2) Change netnews software to allow a configuration option which does respond to new group creation requests directly, but forwards them to the local administrator for consideration. This would be coupled with mods to the software to discard articles to groups which have not been authorized. 3) Change to network 'policy' for new group creation to mandate that some minimum number os ***sites*** must agree before a new group can be created. I would suggest that this number be about 100. Alternately, raise the limit on the number of readers to (say), 200. Comments -------- Comments may be addressed to me personally. I will digest them for net.news. Please limit your responses to rational discussion of the (possible) problem, and suggestions for other solutions. Flames will be discarded. S. McGeady Tektronix, Inc. {ucbvax,decvax,zehntel,cbosg}!teklabs!stevenm UUCP stevenm.tektronix CSNET