bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) (01/16/88)
[Background: There is ongoing discussion about splitting both the Mac and
Amiga groups. A vote is underway on the Amiga proposal. This posting
should be of interest to the readers of any high volume group considering a
split.]
Among the responses received so far on the split comp.sys.amiga vote, there
has been a remarkable number of "write-in" votes for a much more radical
approach. The exact details vary, but they are all quite close in
principle. Basically they are saying: "I'd like to see it split MORE
ways".
Since so may people are already indicating interest in this, I'll toss it
out for all to see.
It was summed up best by one person who wrote:
--------------
I've been mulling over a more drastic solution. Actually, I've been
contemplating a different way of looking at netnoise, with [comp.sys.amiga]
as the testbed:
The idea is to not view newsgroups as "barriers" between discussions, but
as "keywords" to indicate topics of interest. The general idea is to think
of what groups you're interested in a posting being read by, then post to
the most specific newsgroup that will reach part of that group.
So the split for c.s.a would be something like:
comp.sys.amiga - no postings, just a root for the keywords
".hardware - postings that somehow discuss hardware
".software - ditto software
".misc - nothing else applices
".A2000 - Amiga 2000 specific
".A1000 - " 1000
".A500 - " 500
".tech
".novice
".applications
".programming
".audio
".video
".religious
[".reviews
".marketing
".questions
".games]
Etc, etc, etc. The more the merrier. Cross-posting is to be *encouraged*.
An article looking for hardware & software for building video tapes on an
A2000 should be crossposted to hardware, software, A2000, video and
applications. An answer that discussed the technical merits/demerits of
various products would add .tech to the list. Someone looking for an editor
for programming with would probably post to .programming, .applications,
.software and maybe .tech. Somone wanting to know how to build a virus
would post to .hardware, .software, .tech and .programming. If you wanted
to talk about whether such was good or bad, you'd probably post to
.software and .religious.
Those wanting to avoid certain subjects would filter incoming news on the
Newsgroups: line.
Of course, to actually work, this would require some effort on the part of
the posters, and (more importantly) those doing followups. But it can't be
worse than the current monolithic system, and can't be much worse than a
two-way split.
--------------
There you have it. Let's discuss the merits of this for both
comp.sys.amiga AND all the other high volume groups on the net. The
comp.sys.mac group should be especially interested.
One thing I would like an AUTHORATATIVE answer on is cost: Assuming the
exact same number of raw bytes/day, will a large number of splinter groups
cause sites extra cost or hassle? (Will a proposal like this result
in more volume is another question)
|\ /| . Ack! (NAK, SOH, EOT)
{o O} . bryce@hoser.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!hoser!bryce (or try "cogsci")
(")
U "Your theory is crazy... but not crazy enought to be true." -Niels Bohrrob@nbires.nbi.com (Robert F. Prentice) (01/22/88)
> The idea is to not view newsgroups as "barriers" between discussions, but > as "keywords" to indicate topics of interest. The general idea is to think > of what groups you're interested in a posting being read by, then post to > the most specific newsgroup that will reach part of that group. > > comp.sys.mac - no postings, just a root for the keywords > ".hardware - postings that somehow discuss hardware > ".software - ditto software > ".misc - nothing else applices ".macII - Mac II specific ".macse - Mac SE specific > ".tech > ".novice > ".applications > ".programming > ".marketing > ".questions > ".games I believe this technique would be VERY well received by net users. If the cost to implement and run this type of organization is reasonable, then by all means DO IT. We would all be eternally grateful. This seems a good way to solve this recurring problem once and for all. It would be especially nice if there was some consistency of keywords, where appropriate, across root newsgroups. Nearly all users are most interested in particular aspects of any particular subject. For example, I might be very interested in Mac II product info if I'm contemplating the purchase of a Mac II. Later on, (when all the money is gone :-) ), I might not be. The non-standard nature of Keyword and Subject on postings make it difficult to filter undesired postings without risking missing something important. -- Rob Prentice {pyramid, ucbvax, uunet, rutgers!hao, colo!boulder}!nbires!rob These views are of course my own. If they have assisted you, then I am glad. May your day be filled with harmony, and your heart open to the Light.
pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) (01/22/88)
In article <22603@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) writes: > Among the responses received so far on the split comp.sys.amiga vote, there > has been a remarkable number of "write-in" votes for a much more radical > approach. The exact details vary, but they are all quite close in > principle. Basically they are saying: "I'd like to see it split MORE > ways". > > So the split for c.s.a would be something like: > > comp.sys.amiga - no postings, just a root for the keywords > ".hardware - postings that somehow discuss hardware > ".software - ditto software > ".misc - nothing else applices > ".A2000 - Amiga 2000 specific > ".A1000 - " 1000 > ".A500 - " 500 > ".tech > ".novice > ".applications > ".programming > ".audio > ".video > ".religious > [".reviews > ".marketing > ".questions > ".games] > > Etc, etc, etc. The more the merrier. Cross-posting is to be *encouraged*. I can't comment on the cost of splitting up groups this finely, but I imagine the benefits would be MUCH greater. I imagine that most readers of comp.sys.amiga would subscribe to some proper subset of all the subgroups listed here. I also imagine that most c.s.a readers would read both of the groups proposed in the more conservative proposal. Maybe I'm wrong. So here's a poll for c.s.a readers: a) would you read all of the c.s.a subgroups mentioned above? b) would you read both of the groups in the formal proposal? c) <extra creadit> how many of the 17 subgroups mentioned above would you read? Please mail to me, and I'll tally and post the results in a couple of weeks. Unfortunately, the results of this poll won't be conclusive. Even if everybody says they'd only read 3 subgroups, if all articles are posted to one of those 3 groups, then everyone still reads all the articles. It's going to depend on posters (and follow-upers) to keep the groups posted to topical, as mentioned in the posting I'm following up. For all you net.oldtimers: has something like this ever been tried? How well did it work? -- -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ...!sun!quintus!pds
bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) (01/22/88)
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! As was stated ever so clearly, this is NOT THE PLACE
FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
If you wish to comment on this proposal, subscribe to the "news.groups"
newsgroup.
Votes are ONLY valid if sent to the vote taker. For this proposal, I am that
person.
|\ /| . Ack! (NAK, SOH, EOT)
{o O} . bryce@hoser.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!hoser!bryce (or try "cogsci")
(")
U "As an engineer, I only set the value of a product... not the cost."
-Bryce Nesbittallbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (01/30/88)
As quoted from <559@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> by pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte): +--------------- | In article <22603@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) writes: | > has been a remarkable number of "write-in" votes for a much more radical | > approach. The exact details vary, but they are all quite close in | > principle. Basically they are saying: "I'd like to see it split MORE | > ways". > (long list deleted) | > Etc, etc, etc. The more the merrier. Cross-posting is to be *encouraged*. | | I can't comment on the cost of splitting up groups this finely, but I | imagine the benefits would be MUCH greater. I imagine that most | | For all you net.oldtimers: has something like this ever been tried? +--------------- It has not been tried in the time that I've been reading the net (since mid 1983). Just to be even more radical: anyone for an "alternative subnetwork" that does things this way? Sites interested in participating in the experiment would carry the groups, the rest could go on as is. This would also allow us to take the experiment even further by treating the entire newsgroup hierarchy as keywords. I'm willing to talk with interested sysadmins who might want to organize such a subnet. If there's enough interest, we can draft a set of guidelines and the initial keyword space, then announce the availability of the subnetwork. (Either that or it's time for a certain net.nuisance to put his money where his keyboard is and post the keyword-based news he claimed to be playing with a few months ago.) -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {well!hoptoad,uunet!hnsurg3,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery PS/2: Half a computer. OS/2: Half an operating system for half a computer.