gaynor@topaz.UUCP (04/01/87)
-- _____ || / \ || / \ || | $0.25 | || \ / || \_____/ -- Insert Coin Coin to Have Have message Read Aloud In article <3.14159@cbosdg.UUCP>, mark@cbosdg.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > Our choice, therefore, is clear, and we must regretfully declare the > renaming as a failed experiment. As a user, I am sorry to here it. I was thinking, "Finally, they're imposing some order on this unstructured newsgroup chaos.". I had the names right originally, and it took little practice to get them right after the renaming. I don't find it a big inconvenience to go back to the original names, but rather an annoyance with the user community in general for not catching on to the more elegant nomenclature. I don't think that the renaming was a failed experement in and of itself, but rather a textbook example of a combination of the following: (a) the old dog/new trick syndrome, (b) it is human nature to take the path of least resistance, (c) those otherwise unopinionated must be compelled to change (That is, if they don't give a damn which way the groups are named, give 'em a nudge in the right direction; I think a little harder push might have had more effect.). I am open to correction, but think that (a) and (b) are the most likely causes of the disappointing results. I'm sure you and your peers have gone over the matter at length. I think, though, that it was too big of a change too suddenly. The group restructuring should have been a slow, subtle, and transparant evolution (ie crafty, right under our noses). Occasionally, a group renaming here, after diverting all the messages from the old group to the new one without effectively deleting the old one until it was established that the new name is the one people were used to seeing. > We've been evaluating the the network since the conversion was done, > and we are disappointed with the results. The renaming simply hasn't > had the positive effects that we had hoped. Would it be a real inconvenience to post your evaluation and the criteria upon which it is based? I think that the user community should have access to the same information with which you justify the reversion to the old nomenclature, and a chance to evaluate it ourselves. Of course, this need not have any affect upon you decision whatsoever, but may provide you with more insight. > The Backbone Cabal. In a lighter vein, perhaps you should refer to the 'brains' of this USENET phenomenon as 'The Central Nervous System', and to the big, brawny backbone sights as 'Vertebrae' :-). Thanks for your consideration, Silver (Happy 4/1/87! <:-D ) /-------------------------------------------------\ | uucp: ...!topaz!gaynor ...!topaz!remus!gaynor | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | | arpa: gaynor@topaz silver@aim | \-------------------------------------------------/
gww@beatnix.UUCP (04/01/87)
In article <3.14159@cbosdg.UUCP> mark@cbosdg.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >As you all know, a few months ago the backbone sites and other people >involved in the maintenance and planning for USENET made the decision to >globally rename the groups in the hope of clearing up the sometimes >confusing or incorrect names used. If today wasn't 1 Apr, I'd take Mark seriously, but since today is 1 Apr, I'll disregard his comments and expect to see the current naming continue. I personally like it, however I was not looking forward to the mod groups being renamed. That part I found to be confusing to the users - they really had no clear way of distinguishing between a moderated and nonmoderated group. Before you tell me that it's all in 2.11++, I admit I'm still running 2.10.3. I just haven't made the time to put up 2.11 - I figured the renaming of the mod groups would force me to do it. I could go to management and say ``UseNet emergency... I've got to put up 2.11, so I'll be later on my other projects'' - now Mark has gone and spoiled all that and I'll just have to find another way to make the time for 2.11. >The Backbone Cabal. In the memory of: C(lifford), A(rlington), B(uckingham), A(shley), and L(auderdale). Gary.. {ucbvax!sun,lll-lcc!styx,altos86,bridge2}!elxsi!gww