tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (03/01/90)
Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. That's too bad. I've made it twice before in my net career; both times it was ignored, and both times, it turned out to be correct. The previous times were, first, on Fidonet, with the division of an occult newsgroup into three parts, one for occult discussion, one for social discussion within the community, and one for magazine-quality articles and not for any kind of discussion. I predicted major problems with careless users, and I was correct. Within a month after the split, the "magazine" section was flooded with discussion, and even now some two years later various sysop measures have not kept discussion out of it. And of course, users don't seem to get the idea that meta-discussions flaming people for their inappropriate postings in the magazine section are also inappropriate for the magazine section. Meanwhile, the occult and social groups are nearly indistinguishable in content, and anyone interested in either one has to read both to avoid missing pertinent messages. The second time I made this prediction was with respect to USENET's alt.prose and alt.prose.d; I held that people would largely not respect the difference, and while it's not as serious a problem with only two groups as it was with Magick-net's three groups or as it will be with the proposed six to ten Macintosh groups, there is still a large proportion of the alt.prose traffic that is discussion and criticism which belongs on alt.prose.d. This is not a speculative model; it is an empirical observation. Introducing fine distinctions between closely related groups has not worked in the past, and it is unlikely to work now, especially among a user community as obviously undisciplined as comp.sys.mac users. I share with everyone else the wish that it were possible to read comp.sys.mac; but I am not so blinded by wishful thinking that I think tens of thousands of network users are going to jump up and salute a reorganization proposal and exercise eternal vigilance to preserve it. If comp.sys.mac users were this fastidious or this considerate, we wouldn't have the problem with comp.sys.mac as it is. As it is, if we pursue this course of wishful thinking, we will have just what my observations predict: eight unreadable newsgroups filled with meta-flames about inappropriate posting and wide cross-posting, to replace one newsgroup which, though voluminous and unwieldy, at least is usually not dominated by meta-discussion and off-topic messages. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
pfr654@csc.anu.oz (03/02/90)
In article <10522@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: > Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. That's too bad. > I've made it twice before in my net career; both times it was ignored, > and both times, it turned out to be correct. > (Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) > -- > Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com > Great point, Tim You just need someone at your site to spend about an hour per day checking through c.s.m. to see if anything relevant to their site is there. I had thought that the reorg was a good idea, but now think not.-- ************************************************************************* Phil Ryan * No matter where Research Student * you go... ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics * Canberra, Australia *... there you are. pfr654@csc.anu.oz * phone:(61-62)494678 * Buckaroo Banzai *************************************************************************
mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (03/03/90)
pfr654@csc.anu.oz writes: >In article <10522@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >> Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) >You just need someone at your site to spend about an hour per day checking >through c.s.m.* [hierarchy] to see if anything relevant >to their site is there. >I had thought that the reorg was a good idea, but now think not.-- I share "some" of you feelings as well. The initial proposal (#1-5) looked really good. Having all the application issues presented into one comp.sys.mac.apps group that application-oriented people could subscribe to was an excellent idea. Now things have changed. The general applications group is going to be replaced by a misc group--of all things--that everyone is going to have to waste time viewing. Moreover, we are now going to replace comp.sys.mac.apps with "lots" of little dinky groups like c.s.m.games, c.s.m.comm, c.s.m.virus, and c.s.m.weird-stuff. I seriously don't think there's enough "weird-stuff" traffic in each little area like games, comm, virus, etc. to make a special group for each of them. I would like to appeal to the Usenet voters to vote YES on any general applications group like comp.sys.mac.apps (or c.s.m.appl) and vote NO on creating any special-purpose weird-stuff applications group. I would also like to urge voters to vote NO on any kind of proposal that requires posting "application-specific" issues to a "general" misc group (such as c.s.m.misc). For example, we shouldn't have to post graphics stuff to c.s.m.misc JUST BECAUSE there isn't a special-purpose c.s.m.graphics group on Usenet. Naturally, there isn't enough graphics postings in c.s.m to justify a special graphics group; that is why we must create comp.sys.mac.apps; it's needed to takeup the slack in the application domain. And the misc group should be designed--solely--to takeup the slack in the NON-application domain. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
dswt@stl.stc.co.uk (Stewart Tansley) (03/07/90)
In article <1628.25ee76c8@csc.anu.oz> pfr654@csc.anu.oz writes: >In article <10522@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >> Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. That's too bad. >> I've made it twice before in my net career; both times it was ignored, >> and both times, it turned out to be correct. > >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) > >> Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com > >Great point, Tim >I had thought that the reorg was a good idea, but now think not.-- >Phil Ryan I agree with Tim's point too, and have come to agree like Phil - after thinking that the proposed schema was nice, but not now. People in general will just not follow it. It *WILL* be abused - mostly unintentionally, but it will be. So what's the point? Nice schema, shame about human nature... Stewart. =========================================================================== Stewart Tansley | STC Technology Ltd | 'Be cool, or be +44 279 29531 x2763 | London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK | cast out...' dswt@stl.stc.co.uk | ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dswt | Subdivisions, Rush ===========================================================================
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/08/90)
> >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that > >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) Unfortunately for this theory existing comp.sys splits don't bear this out. For example, tossing comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.hardware leaves me with a worthwhile groups with an acceptable volume and signal-to-noise ratio. The problem with Tim, I suspect, is that he's going to want to read all the groups anyway... so for him it'll just end up with increased volume. You can't solve everyone's problems that way. But for the sake of the people who will benefit, how about it? -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (03/09/90)
>>In article <10522@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >>> Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. That's too bad. >>> I've made it twice before in my net career; both times it was ignored, >>> and both times, it turned out to be correct. I agree with Tim on this. I haven't been reading news long enough to guess what might happen but human nature is bound to repeat itself. Can we vote not to reorg? There are too many News groups for me to go through already. The "n" key works well for me. (but then again I just started using Telnet and before that I had a 9600 baud connection). Is there something else we can do? I would hate to see comp.sys.mac turn into something I would no longer care or have time to read. My vote is to NOT reorg. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora SRI International mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (03/09/90)
In article <0Y22XFDxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that >> >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) > >Unfortunately for this theory existing comp.sys splits don't bear this out. >For example, tossing comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.hardware leaves me >with a worthwhile groups with an acceptable volume and signal-to-noise ratio. Yes, of course. Again, I don't see you trying to look at the social factors involved. The problem happens when the groups have largely overlapping readerships. This is the distinction between major and minor divisions I was making. No one but programmers reads comp.sys.mac.programmer, so there's not a major overlap problem. The proposed maze of Mac groups will, however, have largely overlapping readerships, and experience proves that in these cases people will not distinguish one group from another very well when deciding where to put their messages. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "The pride of the peacock is the glory of God. The lust of the goat is the bounty of God. The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God. The nakedness of woman is the work of God." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (03/10/90)
In article <10720@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <0Y22XFDxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >>> >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that >>> >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) >> >>Unfortunately for this theory existing comp.sys splits don't bear this out. >>For example, tossing comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.hardware leaves me >>with a worthwhile groups with an acceptable volume and signal-to-noise ratio. > >Yes, of course. Again, I don't see you trying to look at the social >factors involved. The problem happens when the groups have largely >overlapping readerships. This is the distinction between major and >minor divisions I was making. No one but programmers reads >comp.sys.mac.programmer, so there's not a major overlap problem. The >proposed maze of Mac groups will, however, have largely overlapping >readerships, and experience proves that in these cases people will not >distinguish one group from another very well when deciding where to put >their messages. I have to agree with Tim (surprise, surprise!). I just don't think there's enough differentiation between the groups to make it useful for people to have separate groups. Even now, it seems to mee a good third to a half of the mac.hardware posts are posted to c.s.m and don't even make it to c.s.mac.hardware. To put it another way, the splits are LOGICAL---but will they be used by the majority or even a large plurality of users? I don't get the feel that they will. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but from where I stand, I'm not so sure that this reorganization will be doing anything.