adams@calma.UUCP (Robert Adams) (10/26/85)
The discussion about creating and destroying groups (net.bizarre, ...) seems to be pushing for fewer groups rather than more. I find that it is the "off the main track" groups that have the best content because, I feel, that those who are interested in the subject are the ones who will have reasonable comments. The low volume groups are the best groups. Is there any particular net overhead to have more groups rather than less? The "overload" problem is in total character volume and not number of groups. Wouldn't many special interest groups better serve the users of the net by making data on a particular subject findable rather than buried in with other discussions? In net.mail, they are discussing keyword mail selection. Isn't the news group name really just a "keyword" classification of the article? More groups would make things easier to find and make for more meaningful discussions on individual topics. I vote for the creation of many more groups rather than trying to restrict the creation and low volume use of them. adams@calma.UUCP -- Robert Adams ...!ucbvax!calma!adams
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/28/85)
> Is there any particular net overhead to have more groups rather > than less? Yes. It encourages the posting of material that might not otherwise have been posted. > More groups would make things easier to find... This is CLEARLY a debatable point. One of the major objections to keyword-based news has been that too many keywords lead to difficulty in finding the articles you want, and eliminating those you don't want. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY