gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (09/01/85)
When net.bizarre first showed up (or was it the second, or maybe
third time?), people expected it to be a refuge for the truly bizarre.
It was a peculiar group in that it came into being without apparent
need or request, but won wide support among people who just knew
the net needed something like this.
Well net.bizarre is now quite mundane, and the experiment was
a failure. Worse, it comes in faster than other dumb groups
like net.religion and net.origins. I think net.bizarre will
become the first group at this site to have an expire time
even shorter than those other dumb groups.
Are there really any of its original supporters who still feel
it is worth keeping around?
[Maybe ``Stupid People's Court'' should have it's own mailing list --
I'll subscribe!]
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!gamhoward@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) (09/04/85)
> When net.bizarre first showed up (or was it the second, or maybe > third time?), people expected it to be a refuge for the truly bizarre. > Well net.bizarre is now quite mundane, and the experiment was > a failure. I posted a somewhat positive message about net.bizarre (back when it had 2-digit article numbers). I was willing to give it a chance. > Are there really any of its original supporters who still feel > it is worth keeping around? While I wasn't quite an original supporter (accepter would be more appropriate), I don't see much value in it now. -- ..!{seismo,topaz,mordor,harvard,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!howard (ordered best to worst); also ..!{ut-ngp,shell}!cyb-eng!howard +1 512 458 6609
ahby@meccts.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron) (09/12/85)
In article <688@cyb-eng.UUCP> howard@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) writes: >> Are there really any of its original supporters who still feel >> it is worth keeping around? > >While I wasn't quite an original supporter (accepter would be more >appropriate), I don't see much value in it now. I wasn't an original supporter... I'm not even a current supporter, but it seems to me that the rules say a group will be removed when its traffic becomes so low that it is no longer necessary. Is net.bizzares traffic low? I don't think so, but I haven't checked lately. For the people who are being heavy-handed about this group, the real issue is: would you like a group you cared about to be attacked in this way? I certainly wouldn't! -- Shane P. McCarron Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!ahby
mjc@cad.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (09/15/85)
From: ahby@meccts ? (Shane P. McCarron) >I wasn't an original supporter... I'm not even a current supporter, >but it seems to me that the rules say a group will be removed >when its traffic becomes so low that it is no longer necessary. Is >net.bizzares traffic low? I don't think so, but I haven't checked >lately. No, the traffic is by no means low, but many people seem to agree that it is drivel. One of the reasons a group can be removed is that it has little traffic; in the case of net.bizarre, people are proposing instead to remove a group because it is all noise and no content. (This argument has been made against net.flame in the past, and possibly other groups as well.) >For the people who are being heavy-handed about this group, the real >issue is: would you like a group you cared about to be attacked in >this way? I certainly wouldn't! Are there really people who care about net.bizarre? I mean, there are probably people who think it's amusing, but do they really *care* about it? Also, recall that net.bizarre was created in a non-standard way; the original supporters bullied the net into keeping it (by continuing to create it when it got deleted). Given that, I think it's ok to violate or change SOP in dealing with the group's removal. Net.bizarre is a major pollutant, and it does not appear to be meeting its original purpose. It has turned into the dregs of net.jokes; things that no one would feel appropriate for the net in general get posted in net.bizarre routinely. After the first week (when people protested "sensible" postings in net.bizarre) it degenerated, and the original supporters have not come out yet to defend it. I think it is time to get rid net.bizarre and give the few people who really want it a mailing list. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/17/85)
In article <224@meccts.UUCP> ahby@meccts.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron) writes: >but it seems to me that the rules say a group will be removed >when its traffic becomes so low that it is no longer necessary. Is >net.bizzares traffic low? I don't think so, but I haven't checked >lately. > >For the people who are being heavy-handed about this group, the real >issue is: would you like a group you cared about to be attacked in >this way? I certainly wouldn't! Being one who's been 'heavy-handed' about this, I'll be the first to admit that we are attempting to set a new precedent with net.bizarre. "Attack" may be too strong a word, but what is really happening is that we are trying to find out if content (or lack of it) is as good a reason as volume (or lack of it) for deleting a group. Precedents need to be thought out VERY carefully (which is why I'm against net.peace, but that is another story) but if the net is to grow/improve they become neccessary. The time comes when doing it the way it was always done simply isn't good enough anymore, and net.bizarre has become the testbed to see if it is time to start considering WHAT is being said instead of just how much. I happen to think it is -- 5 well thought out articles are MUCH more important to me than 100 idiotic ones. If the net ends up agreeing with us, maybe we can come up with a better set of procedures for killing the 'bad' newsgroups. Right now, 'bad' is defined in terms of things like net.wobegon, which isn't bad, it's really harmless (but don't tell them I said that). With the way volume is growing, bad probably needs to be defined in terms of some signal to noise ratio -- if the usefulness of the group drops below some value because of bad postings, it becomes detrimental. This is a strong directional shift for the net, which is why we need to think it over carefully. I also think it is a GOOD directional shift, which is why I'm supporting it. -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui Take time to stop and count the ewoks...
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (09/20/85)
In article <3275@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >.. what is really happening is that we are >trying to find out if content (or lack of it) is as good a reason as volume >(or lack of it) for deleting a group. Precedents need to be thought out >VERY carefully (which is why I'm against net.peace, but that is another >story) but if the net is to grow/improve they become neccessary. The time >comes when doing it the way it was always done simply isn't good enough >anymore, and net.bizarre has become the testbed to see if it is time to >start considering WHAT is being said instead of just how much. What you say here makes a good deal of sense, but I have failed, throughout this discussion, to understand why net.bizarre is any worse than net.jokes. Humor to noise ratio seems worse there to me, and probably others feel the opposite. Maybe we should just tell the net.bizarre people to move to net.jokes, and then they will not be examined for appropriateness by the arbiters of what is bizarre, or what is funny. Ken
edward@ukecc.UUCP (Edward C. Bennett) (09/23/85)
In article <645@ucsfcgl.UUCP>, arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) writes: > In article <3275@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > > Chuqui says net.bizarre is a testbed for new net policy > > What you say here makes a good deal of sense, but I have failed, > throughout this discussion, to understand why net.bizarre is any worse > than net.jokes. Humor to noise ratio seems worse there to me, and > probably others feel the opposite. Maybe we should just tell the > net.bizarre people to move to net.jokes, and then they will not be > examined for appropriateness by the arbiters of what is bizarre, or > what is funny. > Ken From what I've seen people try to post funny stuff to net.jokes. (Barring the recent license plate invasion of course.) But people seem to be using net.bizarre to post any ol' thing, no matter how stupid it is. Telling them to move to net.jokes won't reduce the problem, only put it in somebody elses yard. The effect of net.bizarre has been a drastic lowering of the overall IQ of the net. We need to drop this infusion of crap. It serves no useful purpose to post this junk worldwide. If people really feel they have to advertise thier idiocy, let them do it in a local distribution. I, for one, plan on recommending to my SA that we drop net.bizarre. -- Edward C. Bennett UUCP: ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!edward /* A charter member of the Scooter bunch */ "Goodnight M.A."
ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) (09/25/85)
Hmmm. Interesting. Am I wrong, or have I seen more postings today in net.news.group re removing net.bizarre, than I saw in net.bizarre itself! Ray Dunn. ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/25/85)
One thing to bear in mind is that net.bizarre is a sort of outlaw anyway, since it was never formally created. I say we string 'm up!