rsex@stb.UUCP (02/15/90)
Note: before we start here, let me make it clear I'm not interested in a debate about the merits of sci.aquaria. What is under discussion here is whether or not is is justified to crosspost to aquaria groups to improve distribution of an article. Benjemin Rice writes: >hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: > >>3. The duplications in the three newsgroups are made necessary by a number >>of numbscull site.admins who refuse to carry one or more of the groups. Most >>authors would be happy to stick their article in the one group in which it >>best fits, saving cross-posting for those rare occasions where the subject >>matter fits equally well in two or more groups. But, thanks to the afore- >>mentioned idiots, following that quite reasonable procedure results in the >>article's not getting everywhere that it should. Thus, many articles get >>cross-posted in order to assure that the interested parties on the other end >>will recieve them. > >Let's question a few assumptions in this paragraph, lest someone >accidentally confuse them with truths. Thats all very well, but just saying it's not true does not make it such; you did not prove it was not true. You gave us your opinion. For example: >a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. That was an opinion. Here is a fact. You need to cross post your *.aquaria article to get it to all the sites it should go to. >b) Would most authors really be happy to choose just one of the >*.aquaria groups? (First it may help to define "most authors". >Offhand, I would say that Richard S. and Oleg are "most authors" in >*.aquaria by at least one metric. :-) If authors really would be happy >picking one group, why are there currently so many cross-posts between >alt.aquaria and rec.aquaria (this thread being only one of many)? >Don't both of these groups have good propagation? No. Alt.aquaria goes to roughly 70% of the net. Distribution of sci.aquaria is worse than that, and rec.aquaria is worse again. Now, since by your definition Richard and Oleg are ``most authors'' and they have claimed they would post to the correct group if the distribution was fixed, then yes, most authors would post to the correct group. >c) "[Posting to just one *.aquaria group] results in the article's not >getting everywhere that it should." But to where _should_ an article >get? An article should go to every site that carries the group. >Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and >alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. According to the latest arbitron stats, rec.aquaria has the worst distribution of all the aquaria groups. >It may be >beneficial to cross-post between alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria, since >sci.aquaria has poor propagation. So this is ok, but you object to adding rec.aquaria to the list ? I'm cornfused. -- Steve and Beth
bbc@legia.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (02/18/90)
rsex@stb.UUCP (A Bozo Who Alters Other People's Names) writes: > I write: >>Let's question a few assumptions in this paragraph, lest someone >>accidentally confuse them with truths. >Thats all very well, but just saying it's not true does not make >it such; you did not prove it was not true. You gave us your >opinion. My intent was to expose as opinions some things presented as facts. Admittedly, it would have been clearer if I'd said "facts" rather than "truths". >>a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. >That was an opinion. Here is a fact. You need to cross post >your *.aquaria article to get it to all the sites it should >go to. You leave undefined the collection of sites to which it should go, and in which groups it should arrive at those sites. Should I cross-post a story about my cute new goldfish to news.admin to ensure that it has good propagation? Of course not. Should I cross-post this same story to sci.aquaria, for similar reasons? That's a fuzzier question, but I think the answer is still probably no. It depends upon the actual nature of the article, but offhand I'd guess that a post about someone's cute new goldfish should be posted to rec.aquaria rather than sci.aquaria. >No. Alt.aquaria goes to roughly 70% of the net. Distribution >of sci.aquaria is worse than that, and rec.aquaria is worse >again. Oops. I apologize to the net for making a boo-boo here. Mea culpa. I had thought that the propagations of the three groups were ranked: alt > rec > sci rather than the (apparently) correct. alt > sci > rec I promise to read the next batch of arbitron summaries, and stay late after class tomorrow, and write "I will conduct more research before posting" on the board 1,000,000 times. So, perhaps it would be okay to cross-post between rec.aquaria and alt.aquaria, propping up rec.aquaria with alt.aquaria's propagation. Since the discussion of rec.aquaria is (officially (based on their charters), I think, if not in reality) a subset of the discussion occurring in alt.aquaria, this shouldn't be too annoying. >Now, since by your definition Richard and Oleg are ``most authors'' >and they have claimed they would post to the correct group if the >distribution was fixed, then yes, most authors would post to the >correct group. Actually, I offered no definition of "most authors". I would be happy to see this event occur. I doubt we'll ever get the chance to conduct the experiment, so long as the cross-posting continues. In my opinion, cross-posting reduces the impetus to unmangle the propagation. In the eyes of the site-admins who opposed the creation of sci.aquaria (and rec.aquaria), the cross-posting merely lends credence to their claims that the additional fish groups weren't needed. >>c) "[Posting to just one *.aquaria group] results in the article's not >>getting everywhere that it should." But to where _should_ an article >>get? >An article should go to every site that carries the group. But we're talking about three groups, not one. Should rec.aquaria postings really spill over into sci.aquaria, and vice versa? By cross-posting, we're sacrificing the separate identity of three newsgroups for the sake of increased propagation. I'd rather have the three distinct newsgroups. > Steve and Beth -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas