jj@alice.UUCP (05/20/86)
I've read Mark's list of newsgroups that are going (it's not a proposal, it's a typical fait-accompli) to be moved to talk.*. I'd like to propose an expanded list, based on my own experience with netnews. To put it bluntly, anyone who wants to keep any of these groups should be able to explain WHY my company should pay for it, and so on. Notice that my list is NOT official, and undoubtedly will have no effect on the decision that appears to have been already made. None-the-less, I appeal to the news administrators, especially those having traffic problems, to read this list, and to consider it in the face of the net as a whole, rather than as the net as it relates to you, personally. net.abortion This is probably the most dogmatic soapbox group on the net. net.books Perhaps it should be restricted to "work related" books? net.college I've never understood the audience for this group. If I'm wrong, somebody (politely) explain this to me. net.flame Clearly an example of a group that shouldn't be, and a behavior that isn't part of civilization, much less a volunteer service! net.jokes Jokes? How much money are jokes worth? net.jokes.d Argue about them? net.movies This is arguable. I think it's much the same as "books" net.music A clear soapbox group. net.music.classical,net.music.folk, net.music.gdead, net.music.synth Better, but... net.origins Soapbox, if I've ever stood on one. net.politics See net.origiins net.rec rec == recreation. That says it all, if you're short on cash. net.rec.birds,net.rec.boat,net.rec.bridge,net.rec.nude,net.rec.photo,net.rec.scuba, net.rec.ski,net.rec.skydive,net.rec.wood As sub-catagories of net.rec. Perhaps a few could be moved out net.religion Religion is a serious subject, both for believers and (by its effects on the real world) unbelievers. Net.religion isn't the place that serious discussions take place, for the most part. net.sf-lovers As much as I like SF, it's hardly work related, and there's a lot of traffic. net.singles Enough said. net.social Enough said. net.startrek Gimmee a break. net.suicide This group appears to exist only for abuse. Nuke it, I say! net.tv See movies, sf net.tv.drwho,net.tv.soaps See movies. net.women Unfortunately the hostility on both sides makes this a soap box, AND a soap opera. How about it, lords of the UUCP domain? -- TEDDY BEARS UNITE! SAVE YOUR FUR TODAY! "Gravity causes the stars to shine, tropisms make the ..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
gds@sri-spam.ARPA (Greg Skinner) (05/21/86)
In article <5500@alice.uUCp>, jj@alice.UUCP writes: > I'd like to propose an expanded list, based on my own experience > with netnews. To put it bluntly, anyone who wants to keep any of > these groups should be able to explain WHY my company should > pay for it, and so on. Are you speaking for your company? If not, then I suggest your position be "anyone who wants to keep these groups should be able to explain why my site should carry them ...". If so, then I stand corrected. I won't argue the merits of the obvious (by Brian Reid's statistics) soapbox groups, but there are a few that I would like to comment on. > net.books > Perhaps it should be restricted to "work related" books? Why, if it is not consuming too many resources, and the audience as a whole becomes better read? > net.college > I've never understood the audience for this group. If I'm > wrong, somebody (politely) explain this to me. I only read this part-time, but it seems that the audience is anyone who is interested in what sorts of things are going on at colleges (this could be academic, social, political ...). I don't see this group as a problem if it does not consume too many resources. I would think companies might even want to know what people think of certain college environments, especially if they recruit from colleges. > net.movies > This is arguable. I think it's much the same as "books" Again, so long as it isn't consuming too many resources, I don't see the problem. > net.rec.* > rec == recreation. That says it all, if you're short on cash. If you're not, then I fail to see the problem. > net.sf-lovers > As much as I like SF, it's hardly work related, and there's > a lot of traffic. Agreed. However, there are a lot of computer professionals with strong interests in sf. I have yet to see a call for removal of sf-lovers from the net -- from the looks of things most sites will continue to pay for it. Besides, by admitting your liking for sf, you have provided justification for it, as long as you are willing to use the resources. > net.startrek > net.tv.* > Gimmee a break. See net.rec. These are forms of recreation. Now, for my comments on the conversion to talk.*: I have always held, and will continue to do so, that it is up to individual sites what they will and won't carry. If they want to carry the talk.* groups, fine, if not, fine, we'll just have to get them elsewhere. I will continue to carry talk.* groups as long as they do not use too much of my resources, and I expect other sites will do similarly (those who elect to carry talk.* groups). So naturally, there is no way I or anyone else could convince you to carry these groups, nor is there a need to. I really don't see the point of your posting -- you are free to do what you want, and I imagine you will. It seems as if you are saying that netnews should carry technical work-related groups only, but in reality you are saying that is the only thing you feel your company (or site) should carry. Others have made similar arguments against the various sources and micro groups, that I won't repeat here. Rather than fill net.news.* with arguments for or against certain groups, individual sites should just carry what they are able, and get what they can. --gregbo
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/22/86)
In article <5500@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes (tounge in cheek, I hope): >I've read Mark's list of newsgroups that are going (it's not >a proposal, it's a typical fait-accompli) to be moved to talk.*. I'd like to emphasize that this is NOT a fait-accompli. The input I've seen from the net is important, and I've already changed my opinions about what should be in the list based on what I've seen. (I can't speak for the backbone in that regard, however, I don't know if or how their opinions may be changing.) A better comparision would be the Usenix board, or City Council, conducting an open meeting to get public comment on a proposed change in something. The final decision will be made by the backbone, but the input from the public has a major impact on that decision. (Specifically, it seems to me that the final list of groups to be moved to talk.all is subject to change, although the general plan to move some set of groups is unlikely to change.) One other comment - the previous posting was not my work, it was the result of a lot of discussion among the backbone, and represents the position of the backbone as a group. I had input into the process, but so did lots of others. But the proposed list was not my creation, it was primarily derived from lists generated by other backbone SA's. I don't deserve all the credit, or all the blame. I'm just serving as spokesperson for a group of which I'm just one member. I think jj seems to think that the sole critereon is whether the group is "work related." That is not the purpose of the current proposal. It has been suggested that we ought to use this upheaval to complete the reorganization, dividing the rest of net.all into a few more top level categories (tech, sci, rec, and club have been mentioned as some possible categories, for example.) In this sense, perhaps we should include any group in talk which fits that description better than any of the others. I think what will wind up happening is that the list of groups in talk will be viewed as "here are the groups that a fairly large part of the net views as nearly impossible to justify their cost." Trying to decide what goes into that list is difficult, and the metrics we've used are basically high cost, low readership, and low content. This process is imperfect, but we're doing the best we can. With input from the net, we'll do better than we would otherwise. However, the process is unavoidably political and compromises do occur. As a rough guideline, about half the backbone intends to carry everything, another sixth would carry nontechnical nonsoapbox groups, and a third would carry only technical groups. This is with the SA's making the decision - I think you can all imagine what the decision would be if the decision was made by the third level manager above each SA. One question it's clear we're going to have to wrestle with is "what do we do with high cost, high readership, low content groups?" net.jokes and net.singles both fit this category. The key question (in the eyes of those making the decision) is "can we justify the cost, given the benefit?" Putting it another way, if you were paying the bills, would you be willing to pay for them? Another possibility might be to force them to be moderated, thereby increasing the signal/noise ratio, cutting the volume, and hopefully keeping the useful content intact. I don't have the answers. A note to Steve Dyer - if my mail isn't reaching you, call me. Mark Horton
gsmith@cartan.UUCP (05/22/86)
In article <5500@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >I've read Mark's list of newsgroups that are going (it's not >a proposal, it's a typical fait-accompli) to be moved to talk.*. >I'd like to propose an expanded list, based on my own experience >with netnews. To put it bluntly, anyone who wants to keep any of >these groups should be able to explain WHY my company should >pay for it, and so on. I think "jj" has the right idea in questioning the almighty wisdom of those who concocted the "talk" list. My own idea is that the list should include groups whose intention is not too serious, and also the "more heat than light" groups. The latter category is misapplied at times, however. Clearly it does not fit net.motss. It doesn't fit net.philosophy too well either; nor in my opinion, net.religion.* for the most part. My own comments follow. >net.abortion > This is probably the most dogmatic soapbox group on the net. Ditto. >net.books > Perhaps it should be restricted to "work related" books? Net.books is a pretty good newsgroup, much more serious than many others. >net.college > I've never understood the audience for this group. If I'm >wrong, somebody (politely) explain this to me. I can't. It seems like an awfully silly group to me too. >net.flame > Clearly an example of a group that shouldn't be, and >a behavior that isn't part of civilization, much less a volunteer >service! We are both flamming, so I don't take your point. The group is dead, anyway; and talk.flame sounds pointless. >net.jokes > Jokes? How much money are jokes worth? Not much. The puns are worse. It is almost a crime for corporations to axe net.philosophy and net.motss in favor of run-on puns. >net.jokes.d > Argue about them? On talk.jokes.d. >net.movies > This is arguable. I think it's much the same as "books" Net.movies isn't quite as tony as net.books. Both are OK groups, but not of overwhelming significance. >net.music > A clear soapbox group. Ditto, ditto. >net.music.classical,net.music.folk, net.music.gdead, net.music.synth > Better, but... Net.music.gdead is awfully silly. The rest are good groups. >net.origins > Soapbox, if I've ever stood on one. Ditto. >net.politics > See net.origiins This has good stuff in it. Sadly, the volume is high, and this looks like a likely candidate for budget axing, since so much of it is soapbox. What about net.politics.*, though? >net.rec > rec == recreation. That says it all, if you're short on cash. Ditto. Absolutely. >net.rec.birds,net.rec.boat,net.rec.bridge,net.rec.nude,net.rec.photo,net.rec.scuba, net.rec.ski,net.rec.skydive,net.rec.wood > As sub-catagories of net.rec. Perhaps a few could be moved > out Why? >net.religion > Religion is a serious subject, both for believers and (by its >effects on the real world) unbelievers. Net.religion isn't the place >that serious discussions take place, for the most part. Quite a lot do, in fact. This is a pretty good group, by and large. I would say the same for net.religion.*. These are serious topics, and the flames are not so bad -- at least recently (I ought to know, I write them). >net.sf-lovers > As much as I like SF, it's hardly work related, and there's >a lot of traffic. Ditto. Sigh. >net.singles > Enough said. Unless you think underarm hair *is* important? This group should be talk. >net.social > Enough said. Ditto. >net.startrek > Gimmee a break. Ditto. >net.suicide > This group appears to exist only for abuse. Nuke it, I say! Talk it. >net.tv > See movies, sf >net.tv.drwho,net.tv.soaps > See movies. Net.movies makes a lot more sense. Net.tv.soaps, indeed! And you forgot net.wobegone. >net.women > Unfortunately the hostility on both sides makes this >a soap box, AND a soap opera. Ditto. You forgot some: net.space Some good stuff, but a lot of nonsense. A lot of soapbox, too. net.sci Like net.space, but not as bad. net.games, net.games.* Like net.rec, net.rec.* net.puzzle As above. mod.mag.otherrealms Like net.sf-lovers. net.comics Keep this, and axe net.books? Come off it. net.garden, net.pets, net.kids, net.wines, net.poems, net.audio, net.cycle, net.bicycle, net.auto, net.micro.{all home computers}, net.roots, net.veg. This is work related? The proposal by the backbone administrators is arbitrary. They should think it through more carefully. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
hijab@cad.BERKELEY.EDU (Raif Hijab) (05/22/86)
In article <2157@cbosgd.UUCP>, mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > > I'd like to emphasize that this is NOT a fait-accompli. > > the general plan to move some set of groups is unlikely to change. ?? > It has been suggested that we ought to use this upheaval to complete > the reorganization, dividing the rest of net.all into a few more top > level categories (tech, sci, rec, and club have been mentioned as some > possible categories, for example.) In this sense, perhaps we should > include any group in talk which fits that description better than any > of the others. One top level category you have neglected is *soc* for social issues. This would include for example net.philosophy, net.politics, net.religion, > net.women, net.singles, net.motss and net.origins I believe most of the discussants in this group take their postings and replies seriously, and try to learn/educate in the process. The performance can be improved upon, but I -for one- have learned a lot both from other people's postings and from researching for my own. > Trying to decide what goes into that list is difficult, and the > metrics we've used are basically high cost, low readership, and > low content. Mark, I really would like to know what your criteria are for *low content*.
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (05/23/86)
In article <2157@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >One question it's clear we're going to have to wrestle with is "what do >we do with high cost, high readership, low content groups?" net.jokes >and net.singles both fit this category. Once again I should like to say that I think the *content* of the high volume newsgroups should be the criterion. Net.singles, net.jokes and a number of other newsgroups are worthless and stupid in comparison to some of the groups on the proposed "talk" list. I propose putting these (along with net.music, etc. etc.) *on* the talk list and taking net.philosophy (at least) and hopefully net.religion.* off. Keep the "highbrow" groups and those with a serious purpose, as long as they are mostly successful. Ax the trash/babble groups instead. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!weyl!gsmith Dazed Dupe of the Damager
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/23/86)
What happens if a group or groups suddenly change character and become high-volume etc? This has happened a few times recently. Do we go through all this again? -Barry Shein, Boston University
joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West) (05/24/86)
this is the first I've heard of this (but then, net.news.group
should become talk.news :-) )
I think the expanded list of talk.* seem pretty good.
I would note that we don't carry politics, religion, or abortion
here; whatever their merits, it's the easiest way to painlessly
kill 15-20% of the traffic. tried to kill net.jokes, too, but
I think one of the salesmen reads them for his material.
--
Joel West (619) 457-9681
CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037
{cbosgd, ihnp4, pyramid, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPAgsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (05/24/86)
In article <5806@sri-spam.ARPA> gds@sri-spam.ARPA (Greg Skinner) writes: >I won't argue the merits of the obvious (by Brian Reid's statistics) >soapbox groups, but there are a few that I would like to comment on. How do statistics prove what is "soapbox"? "Soapbox" has never been defined in a satisfactory way. Thus postings like that of "jj". >> net.college >> I've never understood the audience for this group. If I'm >> wrong, somebody (politely) explain this to me. [jj] >I only read this part-time, but it seems that the audience is anyone who >is interested in what sorts of things are going on at colleges (this >could be academic, social, political ...). I don't see this group as a >problem if it does not consume too many resources. I would think >companies might even want to know what people think of certain college >environments, especially if they recruit from colleges. The point is, this is a silly newsgroup judged by its contents, and some sites want to cut costs. Why is this *not* on the talk list, when other groups are? >> net.rec.* >> rec == recreation. That says it all, if you're short on cash. >If you're not, then I fail to see the problem. The *whole point* is a cash shortage! >> net.sf-lovers >> As much as I like SF, it's hardly work related, and there's >> a lot of traffic. >Agreed. However, there are a lot of computer professionals with strong >interests in sf. I have yet to see a call for removal of sf-lovers from >the net -- from the looks of things most sites will continue to pay for >it. Besides, by admitting your liking for sf, you have provided >justification for it, as long as you are willing to use the resources. But why sf rather than some of the other groups? Last time, it came out #16 in size, #11 in per-reader cost (if you believe the statistics). What makes it non-"soapbox"? >I have always held, and will continue to do so, that it is up to >individual sites what they will and won't carry. If they want to carry >the talk.* groups, fine, if not, fine, we'll just have to get them >elsewhere. I will continue to carry talk.* groups as long as they do I am glad you are going to carry the talk.* groups. But the point is which groups are going to be on the talk.* list, and why. This is the point which you keep missing. >not use too much of my resources, and I expect other sites will do >similarly (those who elect to carry talk.* groups). So naturally, there >is no way I or anyone else could convince you to carry these groups, nor >is there a need to. I really don't see the point of your posting -- you >are free to do what you want, and I imagine you will. It seems as if >you are saying that netnews should carry technical work-related groups >only, but in reality you are saying that is the only thing you feel your >company (or site) should carry. "JJ" can speak for himself, but I must say I don't see *your* point. The discussion is over what goes on the talk list. You seem to think this is obvious. It isn't. You should try to give clearly argued reasons if you think the list has been decided on correctly. >Others have made similar arguments against the various sources and micro >groups, that I won't repeat here. Rather than fill net.news.* with >arguments for or against certain groups, individual sites should >just carry what they are able, and get what they can. This position is not really consistent with supporting the creation of the "talk" category. Do you support it? What are you trying to say? ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "The *evident* character of this defective cognition of which mathematics is proud, and on which it plumes itself before philosophy, rests solely on the poverty of its purpose and the defectiveness of its stuff, and is therefore of a kind that philosophy must spurn." -- G. W. F. Hegel
gds@sri-spam.ARPA (Greg Skinner) (05/27/86)
In article <13964@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes: > How do statistics prove what is "soapbox"? "Soapbox" has never been > defined in a satisfactory way. Thus postings like that of "jj". For the purposes of limiting volume, "soapbox" has been determined (to the satisfaction of the backbone) as having high volume and low content. The statistics taken by Brian Reid, in addition to the biweekly news stats, seem to bear this out. > ... arguments on the named newsgroups ... > I am glad you are going to carry the talk.* groups. But the point is > which groups are going to be on the talk.* list, and why. This is the point > which you keep missing. You are missing the point I am trying to make (see below). > "JJ" can speak for himself, but I must say I don't see *your* point. > The discussion is over what goes on the talk list. You seem to think this > is obvious. It isn't. You should try to give clearly argued reasons if > you think the list has been decided on correctly. > This position is not really consistent with supporting the creation of > the "talk" category. Do you support it? What are you trying to say? I do not believe the list has been decided on correctly. I would not lump net.motss in the same category (in terms of SNR) as net.politics.*, net.religion.*, etc., but that's not really the point of this and my previous message. As far as the creation of the "talk" category goes, I think the best idea I have seen is subdivision of groups according to what type of group they are (tech, rec, club, etc.). But the real point I'm trying to make is that rather than us all arguing about what groups to put or not to put into talk.* or whatever, we should be seeking solutions to cut volume, or implement mechanisms that will allow the volume to increase without it becoming a strain on the backbones. Just because a group is going to talk does not mean it will be cut off altogether from the net. Likewise, a group not going into talk does not mean sites will continue to carry it. My statements such as "let each site do as they wish and are able" mean that arguing about group classification is ridiculous in terms of it being directly related to limiting volume (as pointed out by Laura, newsgroup limitation can, and is already being done). All this heat generated over net.motss, talk.*, etc., is just wasted bits, because it only adds to the problem of net volume. I think this is the point you are missing -- that we need to address the problem of net volume in a way that the backbones will be able to cope with. Arguing over what to call a group won't solve the volume problem. --gregbo
dougl@ism780c.UUCP (Douglas J Leavitt) (05/27/86)
In article <2157@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >In article <5500@alice.uUCp> jj@alice.UUCP writes (tounge in cheek, I hope): ... >It has been suggested that we ought to use this upheaval to complete >the reorganization, dividing the rest of net.all into a few more top >level categories (tech, sci, rec, and club have been mentioned as some >possible categories, for example.) In this sense, perhaps we should >include any group in talk which fits that description better than any >of the others. I would like to second this suggestion about total reorganization and bring to light some of my reasons why this would be a good idea. The suggestion of total reorganization has come up again and again over the course of the last few years. Usually the person making the suggestion gets the response "It would be nice but ...." and sooner or later the subject gets dropped. As I see it, unless we do something different than net.* the talk groups will only be a stop gap measure till some later date. Consider the problems that will occur in the next N years, when we have X more different micros, Y types of workstations, Z new recreational sports (net.rec.photon??), Q new game groups etc... Sooner or later the net and the backbone of that time will have to reorganize again. What will do at that time when the backbones that aren't carrying the talk.* groups fill up because there are 16 micro groups now, and 20 game groups etc. Since there is going to be a reorganization anyways, why not get it over with now. That way overseas transmissions can start sending tech, sci, micro say, and leave talk, rec, club on the mainland if they so desire. Also those sites with less than M megabytes of disk space can put tech and micro on all the machines and all the groups on the major dispatching machine. That way my readers can read some groups anyplace and any group on the machine with the storage to handle it. All of the facilities to handle this conversion already exist and have for some time. 2.10.2 news has aliasing, so the net groups could stand up to a massive conversion, and if a standardized alias file were distributed before the conversion, it would not be painful. True not all systems are running 2.10.2 news yet, but lets think of it this way 2.10.[12] has been out for what 2-3 years now?, and if people have not yet converted they probably deserve what they get (No Flames Please, at least not on the net too much traffic already). >I think what will wind up happening is that the list of groups in talk >will be viewed as "here are the groups that a fairly large part of the >net views as nearly impossible to justify their cost." Trying to decide >what goes into that list is difficult, and the metrics we've used are >basically high cost, low readership, and low content. This process is >imperfect, but we're doing the best we can. With input from the net, >we'll do better than we would otherwise. However, the process is >unavoidably political and compromises do occur. The backbones are not the only people that have to justify news costs etc., although they have a bigger time of it. By reorganizing, many sites will have an easier time of doing so, even if it does mean dropping a whole discussion area such as talk or rec or what have you. Douglas J Leavitt { sdcrdcf, ima!ism780 }!ism780c!dougl