[news.groups] Splitting comp.graphics

eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (01/20/90)

>Jef,there are NO such things as stupid questions.  I have been following
>this group and several others on the net.  I find a lot of this attitude
>around.  For crying out loud, the only way you can learn is by asking!, or
>have you forgotten.?  An honestly asked question deserves an answer.
> ... personal attack removed

I just saw the film, Do the Right Thing.  I recommend this film to all
about how NOT to DO the Right Thing.  This issue is one such case.

As one of the people who first brought this issue up (remember I mentioned
the split of what began as unix-wizards), it's amusing to sit back and
watch.  What's interesting is that in the second round, news.groups
was not added this leads to conclusions:

First, the graphics people do not appear to read the news.groups.  They
do not read news.announce.newusers.  Can you blame them?  There's too
much to read everywhere.

Second, news.group policy has not adequately taken into account the
splitting of news groups.  Unix groups were split because the Usenet
admins had to deal with the mass posting issue early.  The usual policy
of collect 100+ pro over con signatures does not work because it refers to
the creation of 4-5 subgroups.  Most of these admins don't have any interest
in graphics [other than window systems perhaps].  The new users of course
don't know the 100+ policy.

Third new users have FAR and away too much interest in posting their
questions rather than asking a net person by mail.  The usual justification
[with some grounds] is "Some one else will have the same question, the answer
can be broadcast for all."  There's two sub problems: the repeat question
and then there is the beginner question.  This also work with the irrelvant
Cross-post problem.

Fourth, graphics people must take some time to understand things other than
graphics if the net is to succeed.  This problem is going to get worse.
This means more than newusers.

Now if you have been reading this in comp.graphics take a close look at
the message header.  Consider editing some of those fields to
remove news.groups or comp.graphics IF the discussion waviers.
I've grown even more cynical at our Mathusian problem.  Does someone
have to resort to comp.graphics.terrorism to get people to quiet down for
a moments: flooding disk drives with trash [worthless GIF? 8)].
Summarize or else?  I don't think it would work.  The solutions Jef and I and
others are trying to work on can't keep up with the barrage.

DO THE RIGHT THING!

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  Do you expect anything BUT generalizations on the net?