rcj@moss.ATT.COM (01/03/88)
Correction to the my previous article; obviously the site would also have to support a studly enough mailer to handle the moderated group postings and be timely about installing new news software when the old software is incompatible (not necessarily when the new software is just bells and whistles that can be lived without). The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-6409 (Cornet 232) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/03/88)
Actually, the main backbone requirement should be both long haul shipment of all news. The number of local feeds isn't really important. The whole reason "backbone" sites are supposed to have influence is because they're paying some of the bills to move all this trash around the world. "circulatory system" or "aorta" might be better terms. After all, think of it. Mr. Reid's surveys, though off by a couple of orders of magnitude, say that 1.4 million dollars is spent every month just to ship the group "comp.sys.amiga" with its 2.3 megs of traffic. Of course, it's not nearly that high, but it is something, and this is what should be recognized. (If we could get a more accurate readership survey, I'd be all in favour of a net rule that required the mandatory rmgroup of the top two groups in terms of "per reader cost" every month. We would 'lose' 24 groups a year at a tremendous saving. But that's another matter.) Anyway, the "long haul" requirement was certainly the main one in the early days. Perhaps in these days of UUNET and PC-Persuit, it doesn't matter as much. (On the suggestion above, certain groups like the "map" group would have to be exempt, or they would get deleted next month!) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
matt@oddjob (01/05/88)
David Herron writes:
) yer right. we exchange full news feeds with 2 backbones. We also
) are the sole news source for most of the sites in Kentucky ... yet
) we're not on the backbone ... Instead, our backbone links are over
) the Internet with NNTP.
I think that nearly the same could be said of "official" backbone
site cmcl2.
Mattbillw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (01/05/88)
Brad Templeton suggests that every month, the two most costly newsgroups be
removed. He believes this would result in great savings.
This is ridiculous. You may condemn comp.sys.amiga as being worthless because
you don't own an Amiga, but (as evidenced by the high volume of that
newsgroup) it IS useful to a hell of a lot of others. And no, I don't own
an Amiga.
Who are you to decide what should stay and go? A stupid action such as the
removal of comp.sys.amiga would result first in a big angry outcry from a
LOT of disgruntled Amiga owners on the net. Then I'd say it quite likely that
the Amiga owners would take it to comp.sys.misc (does that exist?) or
comp.sys.m68000 (whatever) resulting in a lot of disgruntled .misc or
.m68000 readers. A huge flamefest would start, with the only benefit accruing
to alt.flame fans.
But it gets better. Templeton goes on to say that some newsgroups, like
comp.mail.maps, should be exempted from such a policy of newsgroup genocide.
He implies that comp.mail.maps is inherently worthy and comp.sys.amiga is
inherently unworthy. Try explaining that to the hundreds (thousands?) of
USENET-readers-and-Amiga-owners who are utterly indifferent to the very
existence of pathalias?
I find it hard to accept such galling bigotry. And the net is an anarchy,
remember, Brad? There aren't supposed to be any autocratic dictators
hereabouts...
--
Bill Wisner / {cbosgd,codas,ihnp4}!killer!billw / billw@oberon.LCS.MIT.EDU
If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door.brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/06/88)
In article <2663@killer.UUCP> billw@oberon.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >Brad Templeton suggests that every month, the two most costly newsgroups be >removed. He believes this would result in great savings. > >This is ridiculous. You may condemn comp.sys.amiga as being worthless because >you don't own an Amiga, but (as evidenced by the high volume of that >newsgroup) it IS useful to a hell of a lot of others. And no, I don't own >an Amiga. >... >But it gets better. Templeton goes on to say that some newsgroups, like >comp.mail.maps, should be exempted from such a policy of newsgroup genocide. > >I find it hard to accept such galling bigotry. First of all, it's an idea, not a policy. Secondly, it's quite the oposite of bigotry. Some groups I read would get schedule for termination under such a scheme if they didn't mend their ways. The Amiga group was listed because it was up at the top of the list under my (arbitrary) criteria. I have nothing against Amigas. Fine machines. The point is that high volume is NOT a reason to keep a newsgroup in my opinion. It's a reason to kill one. I have long advocated that group creation rules should require a group to demonstrate it will have LOW volume. The Amiga group was my sample pick because it is one of these largest volume groups on the net, and the readership is low to medium. The real first pick would be "talk.religion.misc". Probably around 1500 readers, and around 1.2 megabytes of stuff per month. Now Brian thinks that costs $713,000 per month, and he's way off, but it's still costing around $10,000 per month, or $120,000 per year. The point is not that religion isn't worth talking about. In this case the possible lesson is that "religion isn't worth talking about on the net" As anybody who has read groups on "religious" (in the broad sense, as in text editors are a religion) issues knows, they are 99.9% heat and .1% light. If it cost nothing, who would care? But at $120,000, what's the point? The next group on the list might be comp.mail.maps. I suggested that would be exempt because the "readership" figure for this group is deliberately low. This group is not read by people, but by programs, and it exists for net maintenance. Mind you, it could do with some reducing in volume. Next is soc.culture.china. That one gets exempt (and, as you can see, I think we should be generous with exemptions) because it's a new group, and they're hashing things out for the first time. After that soc.culture.jewish. No doubt I'll get slammed for listing this in order, even with my Jewish ancestry. But I can't see a lot to exempt this one. That's just an opinion of course. That's followed by comp.sys.amiga. VERY high volume (2.2 megs, over $200,000 per year) but a larger following of around 6,000 readers, I'm guessing. etc. etc. etc. Point would not be, as I first lightly suggested, to delete each group right away. A better idea would be to consider such groups on probation, with a message delivered to the posters in these groups along the lines of: "Start being more careful with your posting volume, or the rest of the net will become less tolerant of it, and may eventually want your group removed" If this were a serious threat, the hope is it would calm down the people in the group. Last month, talk.bizarre was only 15th on this "kill" list. One would almost be tempted to put it to #1 after seing a message there that read, "We're almost at the top of the volume stats! Come on guys, keep posting, keep posting!" (paraphrased from memory) Is this what we desire? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (01/08/88)
> Last month, talk.bizarre was only 15th on this "kill" list. One would almost > be tempted to put it to #1 after seing a message there that read, > "We're almost at the top of the volume stats! Come on guys, keep > posting, keep posting!" (paraphrased from memory) > Is this what we desire? > In talk.bizarre, yes. That's what the group is for. If you want serious, sensible discussions, you have no business subscribing to talk.bizarre. And, no, I don't subscribe to it myself; it's not weird enough. I read unix.wizards instead. [;-] Seriously, if you don't want to pay for a group, why don't you just go into your sys file and suppress it? Tell your neighbors, and I'm sure they would be happy not to send it to you. I don't let anything with "religion" or "politics" sully my disk, and I'm sure there are lots of other sites around that do the same. I'm considering doing the same with "maps", since this machine isn't big enough to be able to use them effectively. Where do people get the idea that any site is required to accept any newsgroup (other than control and a few net.admin groups)? Let the sites that want a group arrange to distribute it among themselves. -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)