zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) (12/19/88)
I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard to read the stuff of interest between all the messages asking for advice on what hard disk and/or computer to buy. Therefore I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. Here is a suggested list, off the top of my head. comp.sys.mac.disks comp.sys.mac.memory comp.sys.mac.utilities comp.sys.mac.wordp-and-DTP comp.sys.mac.graphics comp.sys.mac.for-sale comp.sys.mac.misc comp.sys.mac.questions comp.sys.mac.DAs-and-INITS comp.sys.macII I don't know how to do this, but one method might be to take a vote on whether to split the group, and, if that passes, vote on how many groups to split it into, and then have people vote for n subgroups out of m>n proposed subgroups. I don't know enough about how USENET is run to know whether this is feasible. A couple of unrelated questions (unrelated to the above and to each other): 1. Where can I get a copy of binhex 4.0? 2. Has anyone a definitive list of ftp sites?
dl1@ukc.ac.uk (D.Langford) (12/19/88)
In <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) writes: > I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard > to read .... Therefore > I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. Here is a > suggested list, off the top of my head. > comp.sys.mac.disks [lengthy list of groups omitted] > I don't know how to do this, but one method might be to > take a vote on whether to split the group.... This is a TERRIBLE idea. The great strength of this group is that /everyone/ reads it - so there's not only always someone around with the right answer, but of those who know the answer, someone prepared to reply, too! If we had specialist ghettos, it's improbable that anyone not specifically interested in a particular subject would access it.. so a) no expert help and b) a swelling comp.sys.mac.misc group... leave well alone, say I. - duncan --------------------------------------------------------- dl1@ukc.ac.uk duncan langford computing lab., university of kent, uk ---------------------------------------------------------
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (12/20/88)
In article <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu> zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) writes:
<I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard
<to read the stuff of interest between all the messages asking for
<advice on what hard disk and/or computer to buy. Therefore
<I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. Here is a
<suggested list, off the top of my head.
<
< comp.sys.mac.disks
< comp.sys.mac.memory
< comp.sys.mac.utilities
< comp.sys.mac.wordp-and-DTP
< comp.sys.mac.graphics
< comp.sys.mac.for-sale
< comp.sys.mac.misc
< comp.sys.mac.questions
< comp.sys.mac.DAs-and-INITS
< comp.sys.macII
<
<I don't know how to do this, but one method might be to
<take a vote on whether to split the group, and, if that
<passes, vote on how many groups to split it into, and
<then have people vote for n subgroups out of m>n proposed
<subgroups. I don't know enough about how USENET is run
<to know whether this is feasible.
<
To a non programmer, it seems like there is a fair amount of "how to
program" stuff. That might make a good category, but sometimes the
people who know how to program also help out end users, so I'd hate to
lose their advice.
Perhaps a hardware category could include for-sale and disks (what to
buy?)
To some extent I agree that there is a lot of traffic (202 articles this
Monday am because I didn't come in to work all weekend). On the other
hand, specialization means loss of advice when problems are not related
to one aspect of the software and hardware.
Maybe more careful thought about the subject and a good summary would
help to bypass articles quicker. Personally, I at least scan everything
and would prefer a general group. Usually you can tell in a few lines
whether you want to continue.
Shirley Kehrsteve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (12/21/88)
In article <6202@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> dl1@ukc.ac.uk (D.Langford) writes: #>In <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) #>writes: #> #>> I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard #>> to read .... Therefore #>> I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. Here is a #>> suggested list, off the top of my head. #> #>> comp.sys.mac.disks #> [lengthy list of groups omitted] Here's an alternative suggestion. Use your = key, which lists the subjects of all the messages. When you see one that looks like it might be interesting, type in its number. When you're through, type c to mark all the rest as read. Steve Goldfield (about to hit c)
kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (12/21/88)
In article <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu> zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) writes: >I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard >to read the stuff of interest between all the messages asking for >advice on what hard disk and/or computer to buy. Therefore >I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. Yes, yes, yes!!! As it is, I usually just look at the Subject lines, sigh, and trash it all because I can't take the time to go through 100 or so articles, mostly about things I don't understand, and don't need to. That's the main reason to have separate newsgroups in general. It's also the reason I don't even let soc and talk groups on my machine any more.
land@hpccc.HP.COM (David M. Land) (12/21/88)
I think the list could be shorter, but have no specific recommendations
other than:
COMP.SYS.MAC.G.WHIZ
For the people who like to prattle on and on about the possible maybe
sometime in 1998 68050 Mac IIq+ with 64 gigabytes on line, etc, etc.
Seems the traffic fits more into functional categories than hardware
categories as your list implies:
COMP.SYS.MAC.HELP
COMP.SYS.MAC.REVIEWS
COMP.SYS.MAC.PROBLEMS
:
:
Whaddaya think?
-----
If HP even knew that I said this, they'd deny even knowing me. In
fact, some people around here do that already...klein%gravity@Sun.COM (Mike Klein) (12/21/88)
I say split the group. When I come back from a weekend, and I get
a message like this:
comp.sys.mac 217 unread articles ...
I just 'c' the whole group. Most days I just 'c' the whole group because
it has over 60 articles. Who has time to look at every title, even
using the '=' key? Not only that, but subjects wander even with the
subject line staying the same so you can't always tell what the subject
is from the subject line!
Mike Klein klein@Sun.COM
Sun Microsystems, Inc. {apple,bellcore,hpda,microsoft,portal}!sun!klein
Mountain View, CAra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (12/21/88)
I think that _some_ division of this group would be good. Perhaps not the 8-10 categories originally suggested, but may 3-4. Perhaps comp.sys.mac.hardware could be one, as was suggested. I see the arguments against splitting the group, but even scanning and deciding on 50-70 new notes _each day_ is a bit of work. Robert ------- ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------- disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
earhard@dalcsug.UUCP (Mark Earhard) (12/21/88)
In article <6202@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> dl1@ukc.ac.uk (D.Langford) writes: >In <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) >writes: >> I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. Here is a >> {stuff deleted} > >This is a TERRIBLE idea. The great strength of this group is that /everyone/ {stuff deleted} I agree... I think it's better to have a general area where we can all pick up on all of the discussion. If you find there's too much traffic, the "N" button is always waiting if you don't think you're going to get something out of an article. :) Mark. *************************************************************** *Mark Earhard- 0123@DALAC.BITNET !send mail here! * * EARHARD@DALCSUG.UUCP !above address is preferred!* * "He was carried away by a moonlight shadow..." -M. Olfield * ***************************************************************
cvonrabe@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Chris von Rabenau) (12/22/88)
In article <522@kosman.UUCP>, kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) writes: > In article <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu> zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) writes: > >I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard > >to read the stuff of interest between all the messages asking for > >advice on what hard disk and/or computer to buy. Therefore > >I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. > > > Yes, yes, yes!!! > > As it is, I usually just look at the Subject lines, sigh, and trash it all > because I can't take the time to go through 100 or so articles, mostly about > things I don't understand, and don't need to. That's the main reason to > have separate newsgroups in general. It's also the reason I don't even > let soc and talk groups on my machine any more. I agree! I think there could be three news groups coming from this one. One asking for recommendations on hardware or software (comp.sys.macware), another for general program usage information, for those who haven't the faintest idea what an INIT is (like me) (comp.sys.mac.gen), and one for those who ask questions about fixing programs and other technical information that just boggles the minds of those of us who haven't a clue to what is being said (comp.sys.mac.tech). I know that those of you who understand programs can look at someone like me and say how can you possibly think you understand a program without understanding how it works. Well, I am, quite modestly speaking, the one that a large majority of people in the department turn to when they have a problem with a program. I don't have the ability to tell them if there is something amiss with their program, but I am able to tell them what kind of error they are making using it. I am a Macintosh user in the sense of the original idea behind the user-friendliness of the Mac. I can do astounding things with the programs and yet I can't do anything (except make HyperTalk stacks) with out them. This does not mean that I am totally disinterested in how things work, but when I am looking for pertainant information I just get bowled over with all of the articles that mean nothing to me. Just my thoughts on an issue that is being talked about. Chris von Rabenau
twakeman@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Teriann Wakeman) (12/22/88)
Gee folks, we just went through this a little while ago. That's when comp.sys.mac.hypercard, comp.sys.mac.programmer and comp.unix.aux came from. I would just as soon stay with what currently exists. If you divided thing again, esp along some of the suggested lines, I suspect a great number of the postings would be cross posted into multiple Mac groups. There is already a lot of cross posting. Tired of reading cross posted notes multiple times, TeriAnn
@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU:miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (12/22/88)
From: Brad Miller <miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
While I can see the argument for splitting the group, the current proposals
seem to share a flaw: most people would sill have to read all if not most of
the subgroups, because most of us are interested in new h/w new s/w have
questions about our s/w etc.
I'd suggest a more functional split dealing with features not everyone
shares (or cares about) e.g.
color(many of us don't have macIIs)
mail/networking/non-standalone(many of us are standalone)
sound(internal - many of us don't hack those sounds)
desktop-publishing(e.g. articles about WORD or MACWRITE or LASERPRINTERS)
with everything else staying in the common group.
Just a passing thought.
----
Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept.
miller@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller}pkahn@meridian.ads.com (Phil Kahn) (12/22/88)
Mmmm. Lately much I my traffic has been about people bitching about the traffic. I've always found my mailer more than capable of helping me distinguish wheat from chaff. Grunt.
uh@bsiao.UUCP (Uul Haanstra) (12/23/88)
In article <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu> zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) writes: >I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard >to read the stuff of interest between all the messages asking for >advice on what hard disk and/or computer to buy. Therefore >I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. I would prefer not to split this group. Scanning the titles (with vn, not rn) takes me a couple of minutes per day. I hardly miss a thing (I think), and do not have to keep track of a large number of groups. Also, if you create, say, a group about spreadsheets and one about word processors, then what happens to an article about moving data from Excel to Word. Does it get it's own group? Or does it get cross-posted, thereby increasing the amount of articles you see? This discussion perhaps, should be moved to another group, as it already accounts for some 10 percent of the articles... (:->) -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uul Haanstra, Postbank N.V. Amsterdam ...!mcvax!bsiao!uh Pb 21009 1000 EX AMSTERDAM +31-20 584 3312
clubmac@runx.ips.oz (Macintosh Users Group) (12/23/88)
In article <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu> zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) writes: >I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard >to read the stuff of interest between all the messages asking for >advice on what hard disk and/or computer to buy. Therefore >I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. Here is a >suggested list, off the top of my head. > > comp.sys.mac.disks > comp.sys.mac.memory > comp.sys.mac.utilities > comp.sys.mac.wordp-and-DTP > comp.sys.mac.graphics > comp.sys.mac.for-sale > comp.sys.mac.misc > comp.sys.mac.questions > comp.sys.mac.DAs-and-INITS > comp.sys.macII > >I don't know how to do this, but one method might be to >take a vote on whether to split the group, and, if that >passes, vote on how many groups to split it into, and >then have people vote for n subgroups out of m>n proposed >subgroups. I don't know enough about how USENET is run >to know whether this is feasible. > >A couple of unrelated questions (unrelated to the above >and to each other): > >1. Where can I get a copy of binhex 4.0? >2. Has anyone a definitive list of ftp sites? Why is it that every Christmas, the sane subscribers to comp.sys.mac are confronted with a wave of bozos making suggestions to fragment comp.sys.mac into a dozen or so pieces? I think comp.sys.mac.{hypercard,programmer} are already a *PAIN IN THE ARSE* ! Over two-thirds of the messages are cross posted, which defeats the purpose of separate newsgroups! To split up comp.sys.mac any more would make it impossible to read. Thanks to the currect {hypercard,programmer} split, I waste time reading cross-posted messages. Please, let's not start destroying comp.sys.mac. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all! Jason Haines - President, Club Mac Australia's largest Macintosh Users Group, with over 1500 members. Phone Home: 011-61-2-73-1016 OZ Post: Box 213, Holme Building, Sydney University, NSW, 2006, Australia Internet: clubmac@runx.ips.oz.au UUCP: uunet!runx.ips.oz.au!clubmac
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (12/26/88)
In article <631@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> cvonrabe@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Chris von Rabenau) writes: <In article <522@kosman.UUCP>, kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) writes: <> In article <6895@spool.cs.wisc.edu> zeiden@ai.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Zeidenberg) writes: <> >I like reading this group, but it has too much traffic. It is hard <> >to read the stuff of interest between all the messages asking for <> >advice on what hard disk and/or computer to buy. Therefore <> >I propose that it be split into about 10 groups. <> <I agree! I think there could be three news groups coming from this one. <One asking for recommendations on hardware or software (comp.sys.macware), <another for general program usage information, for those who haven't the <faintest idea what an INIT is (like me) (comp.sys.mac.gen), and one for <those who ask questions about fixing programs and other technical <information that just boggles the minds of those of us who haven't <a clue to what is being said (comp.sys.mac.tech). Actually there is a comp.sys.mac.programmer on my list. I didn't subscribe to it because I knew I wouldn't understand such technical talk. I have wondered if this group is alive, given the amount of "what's wrong with my program" in this group. Maybe that's one of the alternate problems: if there are too many little groups, not enough people participate to make it worthwhile posting to that group. <This does not mean that I am totally disinterested <in how things work, but when I am looking for pertainant information <I just get bowled over with all of the articles that mean nothing <to me. Same here, except I sometimes scan such an article because every once in a while you pick up little gems that mention how the Mac in general functions. I learned long ago that you don't have to read every word or understand every sentence to get some value out of stuff that is over your head. Sometimes just seeing the same thing a few times, it begins to make a little sense, or one day you suddenly find that you do have to learn it, and then you're glad to have at least heard some related discussion in the past. So, if we were voting, I'd vote against a split, but if there is one, I'll understand why the rest of you wanted it. Shirley Kehr
kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (12/30/88)
In article <76160@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >In article <631@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> cvonrabe@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Chris von Rabenau) writes: > ( Stuff re splitting this group deleted ) ... > >Same here, except I sometimes scan such an article because every once in a >while you pick up little gems that mention how the Mac in general functions. >I learned long ago that you don't have to read every word or understand >every sentence to get some value out of stuff that is over your head. >Sometimes just seeing the same thing a few times, it begins to make a little >sense, or one day you suddenly find that you do have to learn it, and then >you're glad to have at least heard some related discussion in the past. > >So, if we were voting, I'd vote against a split, but if there is one, I'll >understand why the rest of you wanted it. > I have seen even stronger versions of this argument; I disagree with them, too. Folks who want to see everything can always subscribe to all the divided groups, and I don't see it adding to their workload. Having to wade through all this stuff is costing me real time every day. Also, look at it this way: if we took such arguments to the extreme, there would be only one newsgroup --- the "n" key is always there for you, right? In case you can't tell, I am in favor of breaking this group up into AT LEAST three groups and closing down comp.sys.mac. I think functional categories makes the most sense. I am interested in some software and some hardware, but not all of it. I'm sure the same is true of most of you.
astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Anthony J Stieber) (12/31/88)
I notice that right now close to half of the messages are about alternatives to the desktop metaphor. Most of these are articles are cross posted to other groups such as comp.sys.next and comp.windows.misc. If these were posted only to the windows group net traffic would be reduced. I do agree that the comp.sys.mac has excessive traffic. I do NOT agree that new groups are neccesary. The existing newsgroups may be able to handle the extra postings. Until this is done I would not vote for additional Macintosh newsgroups. However I would vote for comp.gui (Graphic User Interface) or somesuch name. -- internet:astieber@csd4.milw.wisc.edu |\|BeingNet: Tony Stieber bitnet :astieber%csd4.milw.wisc.edu@INTERBIT |/|BustedUpNet: 414-529-2663 uucp :att!uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!astieber |\|Terranet: 8858 Garden Lane csnet :astieber%csd4.milw.wisc.edu@uwm.CSNET|/| Greendale WI 53129