instone@bgsuvax.UUCP (Keith Instone) (01/18/90)
If everyone wants to split comp.graphics, I recommend doing it one group at a time, not by creating 5 new graphics offshoots all at once. I would like to see creation of just a *.formats now to relieve some of the traffic (also called 'useless dribble' by someone) in comp.graphics. Later, when comp.graphics becomes too unwieldly again, another group can be added, perhaps *.research or *.hardware. This is how the comp.sys.mac.* newsgroups evolved and the transition has been relatively smooth with little cross-posting and no unused newsgroups. This method also has the benefit of being quicker and easier to do. We could argue for weeks about which 5 new groups to add, while if we decide now on ONE new group, the voting could be done and we could be using the new one in a few weeks. Keith instone@andy.bgsu.edu
jwz@teak.berkeley.edu (Jamie Zawinski) (01/18/90)
Look, someone do it already. Collect some statistics on what the most common non-general posts have been about in the last >2 months, and do a call-for-votes. This discussion is being beaten to death. I'm beginning to think that the most useful subgroup would be comp.graphics.what-to-call-the-new-group. -- Jamie PS: Flames along the lines of "well why don't *you* do it?" will be sheepishly ignored. PPS: Maybe the monthly postings should be upped to weekly status, and should begin with "direct requests for the GIF file format to comp.sys.ibm.pc".
jef@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (01/18/90)
In the referenced message, jwz@teak.berkeley.edu (Jamie Zawinski) wrote:
}PPS: Maybe the monthly postings should be upped to weekly status
They have been weekly from the start. Where have you been?
In my opinion, there is not nearly enough traffic in comp.graphics to
justify splitting it. The proper response to stupid format converter
requests and other topics covered in the frequently asked questions
posting, is to ignore them. Don't post answers. Don't bother replying
by email. And most importantly, don't worry about it.
Splitting the group would be an attempt to solve the same problem that
the f.a.q. posting is already attempting to solve. Admittedly the posting
doesn't deter 100% of the morons; what makes you think that splitting
the group would do any better? My guess is it would do much worse.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef
The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life.
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (01/20/90)
>Jef,there are NO such things as stupid questions. I have been following >this group and several others on the net. I find a lot of this attitude >around. For crying out loud, the only way you can learn is by asking!, or >have you forgotten.? An honestly asked question deserves an answer. > ... personal attack removed I just saw the film, Do the Right Thing. I recommend this film to all about how NOT to DO the Right Thing. This issue is one such case. As one of the people who first brought this issue up (remember I mentioned the split of what began as unix-wizards), it's amusing to sit back and watch. What's interesting is that in the second round, news.groups was not added this leads to conclusions: First, the graphics people do not appear to read the news.groups. They do not read news.announce.newusers. Can you blame them? There's too much to read everywhere. Second, news.group policy has not adequately taken into account the splitting of news groups. Unix groups were split because the Usenet admins had to deal with the mass posting issue early. The usual policy of collect 100+ pro over con signatures does not work because it refers to the creation of 4-5 subgroups. Most of these admins don't have any interest in graphics [other than window systems perhaps]. The new users of course don't know the 100+ policy. Third new users have FAR and away too much interest in posting their questions rather than asking a net person by mail. The usual justification [with some grounds] is "Some one else will have the same question, the answer can be broadcast for all." There's two sub problems: the repeat question and then there is the beginner question. This also work with the irrelvant Cross-post problem. Fourth, graphics people must take some time to understand things other than graphics if the net is to succeed. This problem is going to get worse. This means more than newusers. Now if you have been reading this in comp.graphics take a close look at the message header. Consider editing some of those fields to remove news.groups or comp.graphics IF the discussion waviers. I've grown even more cynical at our Mathusian problem. Does someone have to resort to comp.graphics.terrorism to get people to quiet down for a moments: flooding disk drives with trash [worthless GIF? 8)]. Summarize or else? I don't think it would work. The solutions Jef and I and others are trying to work on can't keep up with the barrage. DO THE RIGHT THING! Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Do you expect anything BUT generalizations on the net?