gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (05/21/86)
In article <2082@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> Can you or anyone define "soapbox group" in a way which makes sense? [Gene Smith] >However, the working >definition of a soapbox group is one which has a relatively high cost >per reader, a high volume overall, a relatively high posters-to-readers >ratio, and does not contain work-related information for most net sites. By this "working definition" net.music, net.games.frp, net.religion.jewish, net.singles, net.comics, net.tv, net.sf-lovers, mod.mag.otherrealms, net.sports.hoop and most of the microcoputer groups qualify. Net.motss just as clearly does not qualify. You manifestly *did not* use the definition you claim you are using. You owe it to the USENET community, it seems to me, to give the real definition. >The stereotypical soapbox group would consist of a few people posting >multi-hundred-line flames to each other (which should be sent by mail if at >all). The now-mostly-defunct net.flame was a textbook example. Most of the >current "soapbox" groups do not look as "bad" as net.flame in this regard, but >the above-mentioned ratios generally hold true for them, and (and this is the >part that is more judgment than fact) they seem to be mostly made up of >people stating their opinions and beliefs as though they were facts, >typically accompanied by disparaging remarks about those who do not agree >with them. Admittedly, some of the groups classified as soapbox fit this As far as I can see, only net.abortion and net.origins of the so-called "soapbox" groups come close to fitting this stereotype (net.politics if you really stretch the point). This is not just more judgement than fact, it is plainly false. Once again, fairness would seem to dictate you give the real criteria and true definition of "soapbox" group. I suspect it means those high-volume groups which the backbone administrators, more or less by the vagaries of chance, happen not to like. Why they like the discussion of under-arm hair in net.singles better than the discussion of what physicality means in net.philosophy is not clear a priori, after all. Nor is the preference for flames and opinions stated as facts in net.music over the same things in net.politics at all clear. Finally, the choice of the run-on puns in net.jokes over anything else whatever is hard to justify. Try again. Your "definition" would be a bad joke except that you plan on using it. P.S.: If I keep on flamming, will you move net.news.group to talk.news.group? ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 This posting was made possible by a grant from the Mobil Corporation.
mark@dmcnh.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (05/23/86)
Some people just miss the point entirely. If we do away with "soapbox"
groups, whatever they are, all (most of?) the traffic currently channeled
into these "useless" groups will end up in other ("usefull") groups.
So instead of being able to unsubscribe to what I consider garbage, I will
get to do even more manual "n" key filtering. Did the abolition of net.flame
reduce aggregate network traffic? eric@osiris.UUCP (Eric Bergan) (05/25/86)
> Some people just miss the point entirely. If we do away with "soapbox" > groups, whatever they are, all (most of?) the traffic currently channeled > into these "useless" groups will end up in other ("usefull") groups. > > So instead of being able to unsubscribe to what I consider garbage, I will > get to do even more manual "n" key filtering. Did the abolition of net.flame > reduce aggregate network traffic? Unfortunately, this is probably true. Now that net.flame and net.bizarre are gone, you see more "questionable" entries in net.rumor, net.misc, and all the other groups that would be considered useful in a "technical only" scheme. The only way around this would be to have moderated groups only, which a) leads to claims of censorship, b) is difficult to implement, due to the demands on the moderators, and c) would only lead to an increase in "mailing lists", which doesn't cut down on the traffic flowing through the backbones. To be honest, I really don't see a solution to the problem, at least the current distributed environment. If there was central control, billing a poster for his/her article, this might cut down on traffic, but I suspect it would also cut down a lot of the replies from the wizards to honest questions (i.e. the scheme would have to include some concept of a self addressed stamped envelope, so the person posting the query would pay for the replies, as well). Anyway, this is all pipe dream - I don't see any likelihood of a pay as you go scheme. The only outcome that I can see is that despite what may be tried, traffic will continue to increase (if nothing else, just because the number of machines continues to increase) to the point where backbone sites will be forced to start shutting down, due to economic reasons. At that point the net (as we currently know it) will start to fragment, more stress will be put on the remaining backbones, until they to start dropping out, and the remains will probably be isolated pockets of networks. Out of curiosity, I know about a year ago I was told that decvax was spending about $10K per month on phone bills to support usenet. Since traffic has just about doubled since then, does anyone know what the monthly bill is these days? -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!eric
chuq@sun.UUCP (05/25/86)
> Some people just miss the point entirely. If we do away with "soapbox" > groups, whatever they are, all (most of?) the traffic currently channeled > into these "useless" groups will end up in other ("usefull") groups. This is factually untrue. In the two cases where this has happened (specifically net.flame and net.bizzare) in neither case did the other 'good' groups take the traffic of the dissolved group. Flames continue to exist, but in about the same proportions as they did before -- they simply aren't cross posted to net.flame and the stuff specific to net.flame went away. With net.bizarre, there have been a couple of attempts to 'take over' net.rumor (big loss...) but the total uselessness and high volume that the dead group was known for didn't carry forward. This is an argument that was used to keep from zapping net.flame for years. When net.flame finally did go away, if was proven wrong. The fact is that MOST of the volume associated with that group goes away. It doesn't transport itself into another group. -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hoping when a rock or a club will do -- McCloctnik the Lucid
chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (05/28/86)
In article <3758@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> Some people just miss the point entirely. If we do away with "soapbox" >> groups, whatever they are, all (most of?) the traffic currently channeled >> into these "useless" groups will end up in other ("usefull") groups. > >This is an argument that was used to keep from zapping net.flame for years. >When net.flame finally did go away, if was proven wrong. The fact is that >MOST of the volume associated with that group goes away. It doesn't >transport itself into another group. But is the example of what happened in net.flame a good one? Most of what was there were just random flames that didn't fit anywhere else. However, if you kill a group like net.startrek, most of it's volume will most likely move to net.tv (or maybe net.movie) where people will start to complain about all the trekkies take over the newsgroup. I can think of many other examples of how discussions would just move to another newsgroup also. -- My mailbox is always willing to accept letters. Life, Love, Laughter, and Hope, Chris Andersen ...tektronix!tekig5!chrisa