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. >a) Are *.aquaria cross-postings really _necessary_? I say no. Distribution in rec.aquaria is worse than sci.aquaria which is worse than alt.aquaria (ref: latest arbitron stats). Until such time as this is fixed, to assure reasonable propogation of your article, it is recommended that it be posted to alt.aquaria to get most sites, sci.aquaria for places like .mil.land where they don't ``do'' alt and rec, (but are perfectly happy in getting sci.aquaria) and rec.aquaria just to ensure orthogonality. >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? I used to post to either sci.aquaria (crossposted to alt.aquaria to improve distribution of the group in the early days) or rec.aquaria (cross posted to alt.aquaria, again to improve distribution) but ended up mailing a lot of articles to people to wrote me to say: ``i saw the followup to an article you wrote but we don't get *.aquaria, could you mail me the original. So now I just cross post everything to all three and get amused by what groups the followups end up in. >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. Cross posting gives your article a better chance at this. > Everywhere? Why? Because the author needs the extra audience, >and hence attention? Because they want it to?your article a better chance of that. If you wan't an ``audience'', you post to rec.humor or something. I don't really think people post to .aquaria for ego gratification or attention. There are enough groups for that lofty goal. >d) "many articles get cross-posted in order to assure that the >interested parties on the other end will recieve [sic] them." Is the >typical message delivered on *.aquaria so burningly important that >every soul must be reached? If so, perhaps a aquarist magazine such >as FAMA, etc., would accept it for publication, and then the author >would even be able to reach those unfortunate people without any >access to USENET. Actually you probably need to crosspost to TFH and AFM as not everybody gets FAMA. Distribution is poor in some areas. >>1. The groups are not intended to be redundant... >>Alt.aquaria will be redundant when the sci and rec groups get proper >>distribution, and should be eliminated at that time. > >Perhaps we should discourage cross-posts between rec.aquaria and >alt.aquaria, since both (apparently) have good propagation. It may be >beneficial to cross-post between alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria, since >sci.aquaria has poor propagation. When and if sci.aquaria gets >propagated better, then alt.aquaria will be redundant. Sci.aquaria has better distibution than rec.aquaria but there are still enough sites that aren't being neighborly and doing silly things with it. There are a few that are messing with rec.aquaria out of spite to the f*ccheads. It would be nice if both those groups could have normal distribution. At such time I will, unless opposed, rmgroup alt.aquaria. Volume in the *.aquaria groups has increased tremendously and there is, as I suspected more or lessof a division in the technical content of the articles. There are lots of ``HI! I AM BIFF. MY WATER IS CLOUDY'' questions and a seemingly endless series of articles higly technical in nature that only a microbiologists mother could love. I don't mean to sound condascneding to the authors of both, I'm glad they are all there. If only rec and sci aquaria existed and had reasonable distribution, all the cross posting nonsese would stop, relative beginners would not be intimidated by articles on anaerobic bacteria balances in silica substrates and people whio already know how to clear cloudy water would not have to read the daily request for ``help, my water is is grey ans smells funny'' if they didn't want to. But hey, am I dreaming or what ? -- T. William Wells
peter@ficc.uu.net (peter da silva) (02/15/90)
In article <9002150200.AA22180@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, rsex@stb.UUCP writes: > Sci.aquaria has better distibution than rec.aquaria but there are still > enough sites that aren't being neighborly and doing silly things with it. In other words propogation of sci.aquaria is less than the distribution would suggest, because there are many site administrators that didn't beleive that the vote creating it was held fairly and actually represents the consensus on Usenet. > There are a few that are messing with rec.aquaria out of spite to the > f*ccheads. We don't get any aquaria groups here, so that's rather like cutting off your nose to spite someone else's face. All these people are doing is hurting themselves. Oh, and I don't have anything to do with the people who refuse to carry sci.aquaria. Sugar carries it, in fact, with no fun & games. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (02/16/90)
In article <O2S1LN1xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (peter da silva) writes: #In article <9002150200.AA22180@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, rsex@stb.UUCP writes: #> Sci.aquaria has better distibution than rec.aquaria but there are still #> enough sites that aren't being neighborly and doing silly things with it. # #In other words propogation of sci.aquaria is less than the distribution #would suggest, because there are many site administrators that didn't #beleive that the vote creating it was held fairly and actually represents #the consensus on Usenet. I had to laugh when I read this. One of the motives for sci.aquaria was that it would get better distrubution than if it were rec.aquaria. Guess what? IT DOES!!! You can rationalize till the cows come home, it is obvious that you have lost BIG in the aquaria battles. #> There are a few that are messing with rec.aquaria out of spite to the #> f*ccheads. # #We don't get any aquaria groups here, so that's rather like cutting off your #nose to spite someone else's face. All these people are doing is hurting #themselves. This should be counter-balanced by those messing with sci.aquaria out of spite to Richard Sexton. #Oh, and I don't have anything to do with the people who refuse to carry #sci.aquaria. Sugar carries it, in fact, with no fun & games. Yes, and your propaganda assault had nothing what so ever to do with anything. # _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. #/ \ #\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! # v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)
rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) (02/16/90)
In article <O2S1LN1xds13@ficc.uu.net> Peter da Silva writes: >In article <9002150200.AA22180@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, rsex@stb.UUCP writes: >> There are a few that are messing with rec.aquaria out of spite to the >> f*ccheads. >We don't get any aquaria groups here, so that's rather like cutting off your >nose to spite someone else's face. All these people are doing is hurting >themselves. Not necessarily. Just because there are sysadmins who are play- ing games with rec.aquaria is no reason to assume that these per- sons are particularily interested in keeping fish. Maybe they just didn't like what you did, Peter.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/16/90)
> Maybe they just didn't like what you did, Peter.
You mean running a fair and above-board poll on an aquaria group, with no
hidden agenda or intent to defraud the people running Usenet into Europe?
I can see how that would get some people upset.
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) (02/18/90)
>> Maybe they just didn't like what you did, Peter. >You mean running a fair and above-board poll on an aquaria group, with no >hidden agenda or intent to defraud the people running Usenet into Europe? No, I mean subjugating the guidelines for newsgroup creation so you could get even with and punish the netters who voted for sci. aquaria by forcing on them your own definition of what the net should be. We discussed this extensively over Christmas vacation, Peter, surely you haven't forgotten? I'll repeat my question about talk-->soc groups to you: there is a newsgroup that is being voted on now that changed its hier- archy from talk to soc entirely because soc has better connect- ivity. Why haven't you exposed it as fraudulent and why haven't roundly condemned it the way you did sci.aquaria? The fact that you haven't reeks of hypocrisy on your part.