sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (10/09/89)
Greg Woods wrote some days back: > I personally think that the real problem is that the group champion is the >one who gets to make the final name selection. Until this is changed we will >continue to create misnamed groups. Did I hear single transferable vote? Modified of course to allow votes like: !sci.aquaria or even !sci.* meaning that you vote NO as long as sci.acquaria is there. Admitted, this is more complex than the current scheme, but it is certainly more efficient than having two votes as in one of Peter's many proposals. But to make it work, there has to be some real alternative beside the one proposed by the group champion. We have been talking about a name czar troika. Well, give them the right to introduce an alternative to the vote. If they come up with an alternative, it must be included in the call for votes. (Which is easily controlled with Greg as moderator.) Even better the guidelines would recommend that any proposal that have met some support should be included in the voting form. The important point here is that both the champion's original proposal as well as the "serious" one are included. None should be deleted from the vote. Why not simply have the vote czar troika to decide the name? I'm absolutely against that. First it would give to birth to flamefests seldom seen. Second, and more important, would this troika do things all right? Is there an absolute truth in these matters? I submit there is not. Take comp.society.woman for example. If we had had a news czar system at the time, and the news czar had been Greg, the group would never have been created. (In fact, this is the one case I know of where the net.gods did manage to get a name change. The proposal we voted on was comp.women, but the group created was comp.society.woman.) I for one, I'm glad there was no name czar, because I think comp was the right place. (In lack of a better alternative. "soc" was *not* the place.) And, oh, I was not the only one thinking so. Spaf was another. Clearly with absolute name czars we risk that they make mistakes. With my proposal above, Greg, Spaf and Chuq gets some influence, but the net community still decides. -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se "My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (10/10/89)
Erland Sommarskog <sommar@enea.se> writes: > Did I hear single transferable vote? Modified of course to allow votes > like: !sci.aquaria or even !sci.* meaning that you vote NO as long > as sci.acquaria is there. Admitted, this is more complex than the > current scheme, but it is certainly more efficient than having two > votes as in one of Peter's many proposals. Well, give [the name czars] > the right to introduce an alternative to the vote. If they come up with > an alternative, it must be included in the call for votes. (Which is > easily controlled with Greg as moderator). Yes, YES, YES! YES!!! I think STV modified with !votes is the most workable idea around. It lets you vote for a group, with preference for specific names, it lets you vote against a group, and it lets you just vote against specific names. The vote is indeed complex, but counting could surely be done by an awk script or something similar. And it's a lot less bureaucratic and a lot quicker than running two votes, one on the name and one on the group. Down with namespace abuse! \tom haapanen "now, you didn't really expect tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu my views to have anything to do watmims research group with my employer's, did you?" university of waterloo "I don't even know what street Canada is on" -- Al Capone
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (10/11/89)
In article <8910081919.AA15665@helios.enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes: > Take comp.society.woman for example. If we had had a news czar system >at the time, and the news czar had been Greg, the group would never >have been created. Oh, come now. Greg wouldn't refuse to give the group a name just because he voted against it! Only a real low life would do something like that. Brian
tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (10/11/89)
In article <3315@watale.waterloo.edu>, tom@mims-iris (Tom Haapanen) writes: |Yes, YES, YES! YES!!! I think STV modified with !votes is the most |workable idea around. It lets you vote for a group, with preference for |specific names, it lets you vote against a group, and it lets you just |vote against specific names. The vote is indeed complex, but counting |could surely be done by an awk script or something similar. And it's a |lot less bureaucratic and a lot quicker than running two votes, one on |the name and one on the group. Yes, but can you imagine the chaos that will result if we adopt this method. I mean, right now it's all we can do to keep folks from posting, as opposed to emailing, their votes. What do you think these people will do when confronted with STV procedures?! You'd have to create a group - news.stv-questions - to deal with the confusion!! --Cindy ...or maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic... nope; considering news.avian, no way... -- Anyone's death diminishes me, \ | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu Because I am involved in Humanity, /\ | BITNET: tittle@uci.bitnet And therefore never send to know | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee | USNAIL: POB 4188 Irvine CA 92716
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (10/14/89)
Brian (bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu) writes: >I said: >> Take comp.society.woman for example. If we had had a news czar system >>at the time, and the news czar had been Greg, the group would never >>have been created. > >Oh, come now. Greg wouldn't refuse to give the group a name just because >he voted against it! Only a real low life would do something like that. You forget one thing. Patricia Roberts wanted the group in comp, and she did NOT want it in soc, not even as a last-chance possibility. This means that if the group had been placed in soc, she was not available as moderator. And soc would probably have been Greg's proposal. => With Greg as name czar comp.society.woman wouldn't have been created. (All details from memory. Ms. Roberts have to correct me if I'm wrong.) Actually, let's look at it a little further. If we had had the system that Peter Da Silva proposed, comp.women would have been taken to a re-vote, since it got around 150 NO votes. Say now, the proposal would have been soc.women.moderated. (With some other moderator.) That group would probably not have passed. Those who voted for comp.women wanted the group in comp and would either have voted NO to the new proposal or abstained. Of those who voted NO to comp.women fairly few had any interest in the group as such and would have abstained in the second vote. My guess, failure with 75-50. Note: I don't mean this article as an attack on Greg Woods, I just wanted to illustrate what I think the weaknesses with an absolute name-czar system. -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se "My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/14/89)
>You forget one thing. Patricia Roberts wanted the group in comp, >and she did NOT want it in soc, not even as a last-chance possibility. Some would say that she held the group up for blackmail -- do it my way or no way at all. How is this different from what people are accusing the name.czars of doing? >This means that if the group had been placed in soc, she was not >available as moderator. So? If the group had passed under the other name, it's very unlikely that an alternate and appropriate moderator could not have been found as well. She was not the only game in town, so to speak. >And soc would probably have been Greg's proposal. >=> With Greg as name czar comp.society.woman wouldn't have been >created. If *I* were name czar, you could have guaranteed it wouldn't have gone in comp. It was a stupid naming decision for purely and overtly political reasons, and the content of the group (such as it's been) has been a slap in the face to the high ideals professed during the discussion phase. If you ask me, there was a strong piece of "I'll say anything I need to say to get what I want -- once the group exists it's too late." to the whole thing. Hence *one* of my reasons for being as stubborn as I have been on sci.aquaria. The track record for naming decisions with a high political visibility has not been good; practically speaking, it's really hard to undo mistakes, so you have to work hard to keep them from happening in the first place -- and, frankly, the high ideals I"m hearing about sci.aquaria match in tone the same high ideals I heard (and disagreed with) in comp.society.women. >Actually, let's look at it a little further. If we had had the system >that Peter Da Silva proposed, comp.women would have been taken to a re-vote, >since it got around 150 NO votes. Say now, the proposal would have been >soc.women.moderated. (With some other moderator.) That group would probably >not have passed. Those who voted for comp.women wanted the group in comp >and would either have voted NO to the new proposal or abstained. Of those >who voted NO to comp.women fairly few had any interest in the group as >such and would have abstained in the second vote. My guess, failure with >75-50. Let me ask: is this wrong? Under your scenario, enough people disliked the original name to scuttle it; enough people felt that the political act of naming was more important than the content of the group itself. So the group fails and isn't created. This seems to me to be a great example of why this kind of system *can* work, not a failure of the system. A group of people try to force through their will on a political issue; failing that, rather than accept a compromise, they take their toys and go home. That seems to be an affirmation of the system. If the name of the group is utmost in people's mind, my tendency is to believe that it's a political football and they don't really care about the group -- they care about the creation of the group (comp.std.internat is *another* classic example of this....). If *that's* the case, the group shouldn't be created anyway. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/15/89)
In article <35637@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Some would say that she held the group up for blackmail -- do it my way or >no way at all. How is this different from what people are accusing the >name.czars of doing? I would ask instead, "how is it similar?" I find this an odd statement to come from a moderator. If she wanted to create and moderate the group, then of course she can say she's not interested in doing it certain ways. I am disturbed by the fact the the hierarchies are now getting stigmas and plusses around them, to the point that people fight tooth and nail over what hierarchy a group goes in. What's the point? Typical "talk" group propagation (the 'worst' hierarchy) is 80%. Typical "comp" is 96%. Typical "rec" is about 86% and goes as high as 94. "soc" is similar, "misc" is slightly higher. "sci" is around 90-95%. In other words, who the fuck cares? All this fuss about whether a group goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution? And that 5% mostly marginal sites that will prune any group they don't like anyway? People wake up. GET A LIFE! -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) (10/16/89)
In article <33610@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In other words, who the fuck cares? All this fuss about whether a group >goes in a hierarchy that might give it 5% more distribution? And that 5% >mostly marginal sites that will prune any group they don't like anyway? The issue is not distribution. It goes much deeper than that. If the only difference between hierarchies were distribution, then the differences would indeed be small enough to be irrelevant. The source of the difficulty goes right to the heart of the hierarchy system itself. The idea of the hierarchy system is roughly that high-quality, technical discussions should go in sci (and comp); slightly less serious discussions should go in rec and soc; and endless-flame discussions should go in talk. Nice idea in principle, maybe. In practice, there's a huge problem. There are two key words, one hyphenated: SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. It's not just that hierarchy is a function of quality, as it should be. Quality is also a function of hierarchy. Precisely because of the system, certain levels of discussion are regarded as "appropriate" for certain hierarchies. A group in "sci" will receive a higher quality of discussion than the (otherwise) same group in "talk". This is recognized, and there's a tendency for people to tailor their discussions accordingly. Thus, no wonder the fish-people want aquaria in sci. Everybody knows that sci has better quality discussions, and who wouldn't want better quality discussions for their group? Put it in sci, put it in sci, they say. Conversely, no group proposer in their right mind would want their group put into "talk". The talk hierarchy has been specifically designated as the flame hierarchy. Very few people *want* their group a priori to be full of flames (there are exceptions, of course). This is just a hugely flawed system. In particular, "talk" is a ridiculous concept which ought to be eliminated. Few people want to see endless flames on the net (except in news.groups, of course), but creating special flame groups just encourages it. For instance: it's true that abortion is unlikely to get too many calm, rational discussions in the first place: but by demeaning the group with the "talk" title, you are thereby ensuring that it gets even fewer. I sympathize with Norman Gall, for instance, completely: sci.skeptic may not be perfect, but putting it in talk would have ensured that it was total crap. (Misc.skeptic might have been a reasonable possibility, but never mind...) Similarly for talk.rights.human -- how could such an important subject ever get anywhere with the demeaning "talk" title? It's just stupid having a hierarchy which says "all discussions will be content-free" ahead of time. At the very least, "talk" should be eliminated in the next Renaming, if it ever happens. I have no problems with putting most "talk" groups in soc, for instance; it might bring down the average quality of soc (though not by too much), but it would certainly bring up the average quality of those groups and thus, in turn, the net as a whole. (I *don't* buy spreading activation arguments, where the flames in soc.abortion spread like magic to soc.culture.celtic.) There'd still be problems with, say, sci vs rec. We'd have got rid of the "mid-quality vs low-quality" distinction, but we'd still have a "high-quality vs mid-quality" distinction. And a lot of people, like the fishies, would want their group in sci for precisely that reason. Fortunately, in this case, we can base the distinction on something more concrete than "I think this group will be full of flames." Namely, we can base it on whether the group proposed is a scientific field, or a subset of one (these criteria can be relaxed a little perhaps, to include other professional, technical fields, but not much). So, of course the fish people want sci.aquaria, so they get high-quality discussions. (Ah, wouldn't everyone? Why don't we just get rid of *all* the other hierarchies, and make everything sci? Sci.music.dylan, I can see it now %-) But they don't get it, because aquarium-keeping is not a science. Sorry, we sympathize, but that's the way life goes. So hurry up and call for votes on rec.aquaria. [I'd been presuming for ages that the whole point of "sci.aquaria" was to "start the bidding high", and then to "compromise" on rec.aquaria. Then everybody's relieved, so there are no flames calling for it to be in rec.pets.*. But the joke seems to be going on for a long time. Just maybe they're serious? Nah, just enjoying the flames, waiting for a call-for-votes with impeccable timing.] -- Dave Chalmers (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu) Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University. "To live outside the law you must be honest..."
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/16/89)
In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >In practice, there's a huge problem. There are two key words, one hyphenated: > > SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. > >It's not just that hierarchy is a function of quality, as it should be. >Quality is also a function of hierarchy. Precisely because of the system, >certain levels of discussion are regarded as "appropriate" for certain >hierarchies. I am sorry, but while this idea sounds intuitive, an actual examination of net history shows little evidence for it. The "talk" groups are noisy, not because they are in talk, but because they were put there to be noisy. Almost all of them were created in the "net" hierarchy, which had no stigma, and moved into the talk hierarchy later. So it's simply false to claim that the "talk" hierarchy is what makes them noisy. Nor do I note any particular difference in character amongst the newly created groups added to hierarchies. Sci.skeptic is plenty noisy, as has been noted, in good old "sci." I am hard pressed to come up with any group that I feel would have a different character in a different hierarchy. In fact, the only difference I can imagine, were (to pick a random example) a rec group placed in a sci hierarchy would be flamers shouting, "Hey, this is a sci group, keep your ignorant opinions out of this group!" endlessly. The only counter case I can think of off the top of my head is talk.religion.computers, which was deliberately created to be a flamefest at its "best." The hierarchy just doesn't matter. These days, it only exists to allow a small group of care-less net admins to edit their sys files easily. It's just not worth the hassle. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) (10/16/89)
In article <34029@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I am sorry, but while this idea sounds intuitive, an actual examination of >net history shows little evidence for it. The "talk" groups are noisy, >not because they are in talk, but because they were put there to be noisy. > >Almost all of them were created in the "net" hierarchy, which had no >stigma, and moved into the talk hierarchy later. So it's simply false to >claim that the "talk" hierarchy is what makes them noisy. This perhaps holds true for groups which have been around a long time, pre-Renaming. The content of such groups is determined more by their history than their names. In particular, at the time of the Renaming, it may have been fair to put such groups in a "talk" hierarchy precisely because they had been given a chance to prove themselves, and had proven that they were noisy. Such an argument doesn't hold for new groups, though. Such groups have no tradition to rest on, on the content is determined almost entirely by the name. True, the "suffix" plays the biggest role here, but the prefix plays a role too. I have no doubt that "rec.math" would be quite a different group to "sci.math" (not that sci.math is by any means perfect...). >Nor do I note any particular difference in character amongst the newly >created groups added to hierarchies. Sci.skeptic is plenty noisy, as >has been noted, in good old "sci." I am hard pressed to come up with >any group that I feel would have a different character in a different >hierarchy. Well, others differ, it is clear. Proponents of *.skeptic, *.rights.human, and *.aquaria all seemed to buy the self-fulfilling prophecy argument, and I agree with them. (Incidentally: I just took a look at sci.skeptic, and for all that everyone's been saying about it, it's not all that bad. There's a significant amount of interesting discussion about a range of topics, and the flaming was by no means as widespread as I had been led to expect. Discussion seemed to be on a par with most sci groups. Talk.skeptic would have been significantly worse, I imagine.) -- Elsewhere, Richard Shapiro suggests a new top-level domain for high-quality discussions. This is precisely the kind of thing I was trying to get away from. If domain names are based only on the quality of discussion, the "self-fulfilling prophecy" law rears it's head. Everybody will then of course want their group in this domain -- because everybody believes, or at least hopes, that their group will be high-quality. If groups have had some time to demonstrate their quality -- as, for instance, prior to the Great Renaming -- then decisions about which groups go where can be founded on some kind of "fact of the matter." But when we are talking of the creation of new groups, there is no fact of the matter to base the decision on. Instead, the decision itself will (partly) determine the quality of the group. What I suggest instead is that quality of discussion should *never* be an explicit factor in the naming of new groups. If it is, then on comes the self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not sure how many new groups have been created in "talk" post-Renaming, but I'm sure that as per prophecy, noise is high. (Am I alone in finding "talk.rights.human", for instance, a repugnant idea?) To get away from this eternal problem, the name of a new group should be based *solely* on the nature of the proposed group, and not at all on the predicted quality. If we have well-defined, quality-independent domains, we can get away from the idea of "stigma" associated with various hierarchies. Fortunately, this isn't too hard to do. The definition of comp is pretty clear, sci is for science-related matter, rec is for recreational activities, soc is for matters pertaining to society, and so on. In practice, such decisions would be rather easy. Aquaria goes in rec, rights.human goes in soc (as do abortion, politics, etc), and I tend to believe that skeptic should go in sci (as an important part of science is clarifying its fringes), though a case could be made for misc. "Talk" should go completely, as there is *nothing* concrete about its definition other than a prediction of quality. (At the bottom line, "talk" may have been a good idea at the time of the Renaming, as at that stage it applied only to old, proven to be noisy, groups. Unfortunately, not enough thought was given as to how the hierarchy might apply to new groups.) Actually, the only concrete thing about this proposal is that we should get rid of the "talk" ghetto, and clearly that's not going to happen overnight. But I do suggest that no new groups should be created in "talk" (except the obvious, like .bizarre and .religion.computers), as this damns them ahead of time. The other proposal is that distinctions between the other hierarchies which are *solely quality-based* should go. In particular, it is not valid for aquarians to argue "we're smart people, therefore sci." Further, it's not valid to say ".skeptic will be full of flames, therefore not sci." If domain distinctions are concrete, stigmas will lessen. -- Dave Chalmers (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu) Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University. "To live outside the law you must be honest..."
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (10/16/89)
In article <34029@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >> SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. >>It's not just that hierarchy is a function of quality, as it should be. >>Quality is also a function of hierarchy. Precisely because of the system, >>certain levels of discussion are regarded as "appropriate" for certain >>hierarchies. >I am sorry, but while this idea sounds intuitive, an actual examination of >net history shows little evidence for it. The "talk" groups are noisy, >not because they are in talk, but because they were put there to be noisy. I agree. It is quite false, and Chalmers has got cause and effect mixed up. Moreover, some groups in the "talk" hierarchy have a generally higher level of discussion than some in the "sci". Just compare talk.philosophy with sci.skeptic. It was because I *knew* what sci.skeptic was going to be like that I opposed it; it was (and is, and will remain) a "talk" group in "sci". Sci.aqauria will *never* be a real "sci" group. It's not a matter of only a little science discussion--there is NONE. The people calling for this don't seem to know the difference between talking about technical features of their hobby, such as how to kill snails, and a scientific discussion. >In fact, the only difference I can imagine, were (to pick a random example) a >rec group placed in a sci hierarchy would be flamers shouting, "Hey, this >is a sci group, keep your ignorant opinions out of this group!" endlessly. I'm going to be sorely tempted to do just this to everyone in sight if sci.fish_heads gets created. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "To name the unnamable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start arguments, shape the world and stop it from going asleep". -- 'The Satanic Verses'
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/16/89)
>Such groups have no >tradition to rest on, on the content is determined almost entirely by the >name. I don't agree with this at all. As can be found in dozens of groups on the net, the top level domain really doesn't moderate content significantly. sci.skeptic, to give one blatant example, isn't any more scientific because it's in sci. It's a talk group, plain and simple, in the wrong domain because of the way naming is done. Unfortunately, getting something moved is impossible without some kind oif major renaming, since renaming on a case-by-case basis is politically impractical. >I have no doubt that "rec.math" would be quite a >different group to "sci.math" (not that sci.math is by any means perfect...). You may not doubt that, but I do. If there were *both* rec.math and sci.math, yes. Or maybe: the history of comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards tends to show that if you create a 'beginners' group and a 'serious persons' group the beginners will simply cross-post into both places, since it's obvious they need the advice of the expert. Going from a 'lesser' domain to a 'better' domain (i.e. soc->sci or rec->sci) does not improve the content. It improves distribution and probably makes the founders of the group feel better (since it's a 'serious' group rather than a 'play' group) but it doesn't do anything to either the audience or the content. I'm not sure that going from a 'better' to a 'lesser' domain would affect content markably, either -- there would be a reduction in audience due to the restricted distributions, but that should, generally, be an across the board (from expert to dweeb) cut. Are you really arguing that someone who is interested in math isn't going to post to a math group just because it's in a recreational domain? From the experience we've seen in groups all over the net, the idiots are just as happy to migrate up the domain as the experts are to head down into the slums. There are, frankly, as many good experts in rec.birds and rec.pets as there are in alt.aquaria -- you don't see the veterinary researchers and the dog/cat/bird breeders screaming that they're too good for rec.all, though. And sci.skeptic (among others) shows clearly that putting a group in sci doesn't make it either better or technical -- or keep the dweebs out. The upper level naming is nothing more than a series of signposts and hints. Experience on the net shows that it doesn't moderate posting behaviour one whit. >Well, others differ, it is clear. Proponents of *.skeptic, *.rights.human, >and *.aquaria all seemed to buy the self-fulfilling prophecy argument, and >I agree with them. You can agree all you want -- there's no body of evidence to support it... I will, for instance, put up rec.arts.comics, rec.arts.sf-lovers, rec.mag.otherrealms, rec.pets or rec.birds up against any of the sci groups for signal/noise and content/flame ratio. Being in rec. doesn't imply lack of content or somehow being lesser. All of those groups, for instance, beat sci.skeptic, sci.environment and sci.nanotech on content and usefulness and relative percentage of flames. People are trying to push 'rec' as somehow inherently bad -- dead wrong. It's no more bad than 'sci' is inherently good. They're placemarkers, and goodness and badness are defined by the content of the groups inside, on a group by group basis. The only domain that can be defined as 'bad' globally is talk -- and that is by definition. This whole 'move it into sci so we can get a real conversation' discussion is a red herring -- there's absolutely no proof that being in one domain makes a group better, and lots and lots of documentation that shows it makes no difference. It's an emotional, ego-loaded, political discussion, not a technical or factual one. >This is precisely the kind of thing I was trying to get away from. If domain >names are based only on the quality of discussion, the "self-fulfilling >prophecy" law rears it's head. The only way this works is if all of the groups in that domain are actively moderated -- because it isn't the name that improves information, it's the insertion of a body between the poster and the reader to edit/screen. >Everybody will then of course want their >group in this domain -- because everybody believes, or at least hopes, that >their group will be high-quality. Which is what happened with comp.society.women (and which was proved incorrect, fairly blatantly). Which is what is currently happening with sci.aquarium as well. >What I suggest instead is that quality of discussion should *never* be an >explicit factor in the naming of new groups. The whole purpose of the domain structure was *never* to imply quality of content, although that's how it seems to be viewed right now (it's *wrong* but what the hell. USENET has never left facts come in the way of a good argument). It was done for two reasons: o to make it easier to tell what a group was for just from the name, and to bring a little more logic to the name space in general. o to allow system administrators with limited resources (or patience) to more easily split off the partial news feed they want. That's one reason for talk -- people who don't want the flamers can turn it off with a single swipe. Admins who only want work-related (i.e. technical/computer) groups can also easily do so. This latter point, unfortunately, is the crux of this entire discussion. Naming decisions are being mutated for political reasons -- if you can figure out a way to put it in sci or comp, you get a wider distribution than if you go into soc or rec -- and talk is the kiss of death (not that you'd know it from the number of postings). So people try to rationalize their way into the wider-distributions ("we aquarium folks are not really hobbyists, we're researchers and *much* more knowledgable than the researchers in rec.birds and rec.pets, and since our fish really aren't pets, we shouldn't be in rec -- we're really scientists. Really. Honest! We won't talk about recreational stuff, trust us...."). The *entire* purpose of moving alt.aquaria to sci is not to make it more technical, but to give it a wider distribution. If the distributions of sci.all and rec.all were equal, this entire discussion would not be happening and there would be no controversy. The 'sci has larger distribution' problem has, in the course of sci.aquaria, somehow mutated to 'being in sci means it's a better group' -- which I refuted above, and I wish would go away again, since it's not true. However, like Pandora's box, I'm sure it'll be around until the next Great Renaming when we put it all back to "net.*" to just make these stupid discussions obsolete. >I'm not sure how many new groups have been >created in "talk" post-Renaming, but I'm sure that as per prophecy, noise >is high. I think talk.abortion (or maybe talk.roots). Very few, and usually it's because there is some kind of flame-fest that is constantly starting up and inundating newsgroups, and so a place is created just so the people who insist on flaming each other have a place to do so out of earshot (and so the rest of the net can tell them to go back to *their* group and leave the rest of the net alone). Without talk.abortion, for instance, the abortion discussion tended to take over soc.women, soc.men, soc.legal, soc.misc and up to five or six more groups for months at a time, and until talk.abortion was created, it was impossible to get them to leave the other groups alone, since there was no place to put them (and it's impossible to get them to shut up). >To get away from this eternal problem, the name of a new group should be >based *solely* on the nature of the proposed group, and not at all on >the predicted quality. If we have well-defined, quality-independent >domains, we can get away from the idea of "stigma" associated with various >hierarchies. True. If people would stop equating 'distribution' to 'quality' we'd settle this thing down. If people would stop trying to create group names for political or distribution reasons, there would be no problem. >Fortunately, this isn't too hard to do. The definition of comp is pretty >clear, Except, of course, for comp.edu, comp.risks and comp.society.women, to anme three mistakes off the top of my head. >sci is for science-related matter, Which is unfortunately ambiguous in practice. The sci.aquaria people do have a point at some level -- but, if we give them that point, there are a dozen groups currently in rec that should then be moved to sci.* for the same reason (off the top of my head: rec.audio, rec.video, rec.pets, rec.birds, rec.music.synth, rec.autos.tech, rec.ham-radio and rec.bicycles). So if you want to define 'sci' as loosely as Richard does, it opens up an entirely *new* can of worms and significantly alters the definition of the other domains as well. >In practice, such >decisions would be rather easy. They are easy, except that sometimes people have hidden agendas and don't want to use logic or common sense. And you can't argue with an ego. >and I tend to believe that skeptic >should go in sci (as an important part of science is clarifying its >fringes), though a case could be made for misc. I could make a stronger case for soc, for the reason that the primary function of the paranormal skeptics is not to bring a scientific basis to the paranormal, but to use technology and logic to debunk paranormal hoaxsters and bring rationality to society in it's views on the paranormal. Putting skeptic in 'sci' mistakes the tools of the process from the purpose of the process -- and the purpose is to show society what the truth of all of this is. Hence skeptics is primarily a societal situation. >"Talk" should go completely, >as there is *nothing* concrete about its definition other than a prediction >of quality. In theory, yes. In practice, it's a convenient setup and you'll have trouble convincing people to integrate the groups back into the mainstream. This is, I think, a place where theory has to bend to practicality. >(At the bottom line, "talk" may have been a good idea at the >time of the Renaming, as at that stage it applied only to old, proven to be >noisy, groups. Unfortunately, not enough thought was given as to how the >hierarchy might apply to new groups.) Agreed -- but the renaming was primarily an exercise in taking a network that was in really horrible shape and making it better. There was some attempt to plan for the future, but much of the really critical planning wasn't done (and wasn't intended to be done: creation of new groups, deletion of new groups, naming issues, renaming issues, etc -- all of these weren't really dealt with and have been slowly dealt with over time with varying degrees of success). The Great Renaming was a success as far as it went -- and it isnt' the fault of the Renaming that the rest of the hooks weren't put in place (or, at least, still haven't). That they haven't simply shows that the issues involved were complex enough that it wasn't worth waiting to get them all lined up before moving forward. >Actually, the only concrete thing about this proposal is that we should get >rid of the "talk" ghetto, and clearly that's not going to happen overnight. Or at all. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan) (10/17/89)
In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >In practice, there's a huge problem. There are two key words, one hyphenated: > SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. >It's not just that hierarchy is a function of quality, as it should be. >Quality is also a function of hierarchy. Precisely because of the system, >certain levels of discussion are regarded as "appropriate" for certain >hierarchies. A group in "sci" will receive a higher quality of discussion >than the (otherwise) same group in "talk". This is recognized, and there's a >tendency for people to tailor their discussions accordingly. Well yes and no . . certainly the hierarchy will convince "reasonable" people to tailor their arguments but the biggest flame wars and running ideological battles are never carried out by "reasonable" people (observe Yakim Martillo's recent rants in news.groups) >This is just a hugely flawed system. In particular, "talk" is a ridiculous >concept which ought to be eliminated. Few people want to see endless flames >on the net (except in news.groups, of course), but creating special flame >groups just encourages it. For instance: it's true that abortion is >unlikely to get too many calm, rational discussions in the first place: but >by demeaning the group with the "talk" title, you are thereby ensuring that >it gets even fewer. I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. There are certain subjects (sex, politics & religion) about which it is _impossible_ to have a rational discussion on any broad basis (I figure 100's of readers/posters is pretty broad). These subjects all involve highly emotional, usually unprovable, very personal assumptions, axioms, "faiths" etc. In our increasingly pluralistic society there are so many different "systems of sentiment" that to discuss these subjects in an open, widely distributed forum is to _guarantee_ heated, argumentative, often vituperative discussion. It doesn't matter _where_ you put the discussion, it's ultimate nature will be the same. Placing a discussion under "talk" may indeed garner a few more flames than placing a discussion under "misc", but that doesn't change the basic nature of the subject being discussed. Heated subjects will remain heated subjects wherever they're placed. One purpose of the naming heirarchy is to indicate to users and administrators "this is a hot subject". Placing "talk.politics.mideast" (for instance) under "misc.politics.mideast" wouldn't reduce the flamage in that group _enough_ to make up for the loss of information-content in the name. I'll admit that the "self-fulfilling prophecy" aspect of a groups name _does_ have some impact on it's content but I claim that this effect is insignificant compared to the "naturally" heated tone of some subjects. Thus the idea of getting rid of "talk" is ridiculous for we would simply have to replace it with another hierarchy that indicates the same class of discussion that already occurs under "talk". Either that or suffer having to weed interminable "talk" type groups out of hierarchies that we are otherwise interested in. -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=- Gilbert W. Pilz Jr. gil@banyan.com Banyan Systems Inc. (617) 898-1196 115 Flanders Road Westboro, MA 01581 -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (10/17/89)
In article <33610@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >What's the point? Typical "talk" group propagation (the 'worst' hierarchy) >is 80%. Typical "comp" is 96%. Typical "rec" is about 86% and goes as >high as 94. "soc" is similar, "misc" is slightly higher. "sci" is around >90-95%. These percentages are valid for the sites running arbitron; however, sites receiving a restricted set of newsgroups are not running arbitron in general. I know of quite a few sites around here that only get comp, news, and sci; while my evidence is only anecdotal, I am almost certain that there is a bigger gap between the propagation of (comp,sci,news) and (soc,rec). -- -- Joe Buck, just visiting/consulting at Entropic -- write me at: jbuck@janus.berkeley.edu ...!{uunet,ucbvax}!janus.berkeley.edu!jbuck
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/17/89)
>>What's the point? Typical "talk" group propagation (the 'worst' hierarchy) >>is 80%. Typical "comp" is 96%. Typical "rec" is about 86% and goes as >>high as 94. "soc" is similar, "misc" is slightly higher. "sci" is around >>90-95%. >These percentages are valid for the sites running arbitron; however, sites >receiving a restricted set of newsgroups are not running arbitron in general. Europe (and Australia?) both get sci.all, but don't get soc.all or rec.all -- they choose specific groups of interest from those domains. So from that simple fact I have to assume that Brian's numbers on propagation are completely bogus. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (10/19/89)
dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >The issue is not distribution. It goes much deeper than that. If the only >difference between hierarchies were distribution, then the differences >would indeed be small enough to be irrelevant. Maybe in your mind, but let's explore the motives of the current discussion. In <20988@gryphon.COM> on news.annouce.newgroups, Richard Sexton writes: } Some articles in alt.aquaria belong in a rec group, some } articles belong in a sci group. } } Whats the difference ? It turns out that sci goes to Europe } and rec, for the most part, doesn't. (rec, for example } doesn't go to Germany and Holland). } } Now, this is probably for a reason, ie. they don't want the } volume, which is understandable. But to restrict a low volume, } high quality technical group like .aquaria from these countries } is less than desirable. } } So how can a compromise be met ? } } I propose then, to move alt.aquaria to sci.aquaria to ensure } world wide distribution. Enough sed(1)? It's for exactly this reason that I voted against the group: I agree that there's a propagation problem outside of na. But for Christ's sake, let's address that issue directly instead of continually polluting the Beloved Namespace. Wayne();