lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/16/85)
"... 30 is the magic number for forming a new group..."
Really? 30 seems like a good number for a mailing list to me. There
are well over a 1000 machines on this net, with many 10's of thousands
of users. And we think that we should start a new group because
30 people want it? Increasing the traffic to all sites as a result?
Even worse, when you start a new group like mod.sources.pc (please, under
no circumstances should there be more unmoderated source groups!) it
is very tempting for everyone in the universe to simply post everything
they have, even stuff that has been posted in the past or is already
widely distributed. Even moderators are hard pressed to deal properly with
things like that.
Source groups, in particular, have a very high potential for massively
increasing traffic. I can't see any good excuse for unmoderated source
groups, since the value of the source certainly won't be hurt by
a little moderation delay. In fact, very little of the net traffic
would be hurt by moderate moderation delay. But whether moderated or
not, new source groups shoudn't be created at the drop of the hat--
no groups should be.
Regardless of whether groups are moderated or unmoderated,
I want to once again implore people to use mailing lists whenever
possible. We've been seeing the creation of many new high volume
groups lately, and things are starting to gradually crack all
over the place. Even low volume groups shouldn't be created when
existing groups can fill the need. Remember, when new groups are
created they tend to CREATE NEW TRAFFIC -- they don't just syphon
off existing traffic. The existence of a new group in the group
list triggers the posting of much more material--I've been
watching the stats on this and know this to be true. It may be
primarily a psychological effect ("gee, now that we have our own
group we can feel free to post whatever we like") but the effect
is real and affects virtually every site.
It's time again to take a more global view of the network and
the way it's growing, before we create ourselves into a traffic
deadlock that will probably result in many (more) sites pulling
the plug on netnews entirely. Stargate is coming along but
is limited right now by equipment availability and can't even
consider taking any real load for sometime yet. In the meantime,
all we have is the current environment from which to choose our
materials. I'd very much like to see a moratorium on the creation
of any new groups until we can work out some sort of organized
system for dealing with the short term growth. The alternative
is plugs starting to be pulled all over the place, some by
major sites, simply as a matter of self defense. The creation of
all groups, moderated or unmoderated, general or specific, affect
the net traffic in manners not well understood and cost amounts
of money that nobody can really imagine. I think the time has
come to step back, take a breath, and think a little before
we try continue with "business as usual" and lead ourselves
farther down the path to trouble.
--Lauren--tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (08/21/85)
I don't feel that we should start to interpret the numbers too literally, because they are anything but exact. A newsgroup that thirty people bother to vote for may well be one that three hundred will use when it pops up in the course of their news reading. Or perhaps only fifty people are even marginally interested in the subject. There is really no way of knowing. Some better way is needed (gee, what an original observation). Perhaps ALL newsgroups should be mailing lists that through high volume and large membership become eligible for newsgroup status. This would eliminate most of the pointless "A lot of people wanted it!" and "You call that a lot?" and "You guys are just idiots for wanting this thing!" debates that now constitute the newsgroup genesis process. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
david@sesame.UUCP (David Watson) (08/22/85)
> > ...30 seems like a good number for a mailing list to me... > ...It's time again to take a more global view of the network... > ...The time has come to step back, take a breath, and think a little > before we try continue with "business as usual" and lead ourselves > farther down the path to trouble. > > --Lauren-- Once more, Lauren has warned everyone to pare the news volume because the present network is reaching its limits. He is correct to do so repeatedly, because, judging by the recent volume (and signal-to-noise ratio) of Net traffic, no one is listening. Bravo, Lauren. I hope that two years from now, when we may all have to be very nostalgic about a great net we once knew, you'll get remembered for sounding the alarm. -David Watson (...talcott!sesame!david) (a Usenet optimist before I administered a system, now a "realist")
long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (08/25/85)
One idea for solving this sort of problem would be to have a "trial period"
for newsgroups. Each newsgroup created could be given 6 weeks to show how much
it has a need for existing before it would be nuked. Eventually, once people
get used to the idea that newsgroups will be nuked for lack of signal/noise,
then perhaps we could see about justifying the existence of current newsgroups.
Dave Long
--
{hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long
Then the Usenetter said to the Architecht: "From *where*
did you think the chaos came?" -- Var. on Trad. Jokedavid@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (08/26/85)
In article <574@oliveb.UUCP> long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) writes: > > One idea for solving this sort of problem would be to have a "trial period" >for newsgroups. Each newsgroup created could be given 6 weeks to show how much >it has a need for existing before it would be nuked. Eventually, once people >get used to the idea that newsgroups will be nuked for lack of signal/noise, >then perhaps we could see about justifying the existence of current newsgroups. I like this idea. As a matter of fact .... I've been meaning to suggest that net.bizarre is stupid and doesn't live up to it's original charter. i.e. the general type of posting isn't bizarre (and, I'm a student of the bizarre) but is basically stupid. And, it's 100% noise. I'm really serious here. -- --- David Herron --- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA --- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david --- {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!david Hackin's in me blood. My mother was known as Miss Hacker before she married!
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (08/27/85)
>I've been meaning to suggest that net.bizarre is stupid and doesn't live >up to it's original charter. i.e. the general type of posting isn't >bizarre (and, I'm a student of the bizarre) but is basically stupid. >And, it's 100% noise. > >I'm really serious here. I'd have to second this. I started reading net.bizarre when it appeared here and was originally rather amused. It has since decayed to the point where I unsubscribed due to the rubbish posted. -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa "If she doesn't scream, the wedding can take place!" Doctor "Don't I have a say in the matter?" female companion "Be quiet" Doctor Which companion, what story?
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (08/28/85)
In article <825@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: .. [somebody else writes] >>I've been meaning to suggest that net.bizarre is stupid and doesn't live >>up to it's original charter. i.e. the general type of posting isn't >>bizarre (and, I'm a student of the bizarre) but is basically stupid. >>And, it's 100% noise. >> >>I'm really serious here. > >I'd have to second this. I started reading net.bizarre when it appeared >here and was originally rather amused. It has since decayed to the >point where I unsubscribed due to the rubbish posted. If this is to become a collection of negative votes, allow me to throw one on the fire. nyssa describes my actions exactly.
fred@gymble.UUCP (Fred Blonder) (08/29/85)
> From: david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) > Newsgroups: net.news.group > Message-ID: <2084@ukma.UUCP> > > I've been meaning to suggest that net.bizarre is stupid and doesn't live > up to it's original charter. i.e. the general type of posting isn't > bizarre (and, I'm a student of the bizarre) but is basically stupid. > And, it's 100% noise. > > I'm really serious here. So what? If it keeps the ``noise'' out of the newsgroups you read, then it's serving a useful purpose. You're always free to ignore it. -- All characters mentioned herein are fictitious. Any similarity to actual characters, ASCII or EBCDIC is purely coincidental. Fred Blonder (301) 454-7690 Fred@Maryland.{ARPA,CSNet} seismo!umcp-cs!fred
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (08/29/85)
>>>I've been meaning to suggest that net.bizarre is stupid >>I'd have to second this. > If this is to become a collection of negative votes, allow me to throw one >on the fire. nyssa describes my actions exactly. OK. Who is volunteering to collect votes against net.bizarre? You may add my vote. This might be a good precedent: collecting votes against an existing newsgroup. -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs|garfield|okstate}!mcvax!vu44!klipper!biep When a doctor doctors a doctor, does the doctoring doctor doctor the doc- tored doctor with the doctoring doctor's doctrine, or does the doctoring doctor doctor the doctored doctor with the doctored doctor's doctrine?
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/29/85)
In article <1437@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: > If this is to become a collection of negative votes, allow me to throw one >on the fire. nyssa describes my actions exactly. Hear, hear. Net.bizarre has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Besides, someone's been leaking it into net.misc. -- "What really knocks me out, is a book that, when you've done reading it, you wish the author that wrote it was a terrific friend of yours and you could call him up on the phone whenever you felt like it." Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
itkin@luke.UUCP (Steven List) (08/30/85)
In article <2084@ukma.UUCP> david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) writes: >I've been meaning to suggest that net.bizarre is stupid and doesn't live >up to it's original charter. i.e. the general type of posting isn't >bizarre (and, I'm a student of the bizarre) but is basically stupid. >And, it's 100% noise. I agree. How do we go about rereremoving it? Gene - since you seem to arrange this stuff, waddyasay? -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA * Just part of the stock at "Uncle Bene's Farm" * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!itkin ***
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (08/31/85)
In article <292@gymble.UUCP> fred@gymble.UUCP (Fred Blonder) writes: > > > From: david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) > > I've been meaning to suggest that net.bizarre is stupid and doesn't live > > up to it's original charter. > >So what? If it keeps the ``noise'' out of the newsgroups you read, then it's >serving a useful purpose. You're always free to ignore it. Yes, but .... I agree, but .... What about our phone bills? (If it weren't for the generosity of one of our neighbors, we'd be off of the net, or receiving very little, right now.) Not all universities are rich ya know. :-) -- --- David Herron --- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA --- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david --- {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!david Hackin's in me blood. My mother was known as Miss Hacker before she married!
judith@proper.UUCP (Judith Abrahms) (09/03/85)
In article <> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1437@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: >> If this is to become a collection of negative votes, allow me to throw one >>on the fire. nyssa describes my actions exactly. > >Hear, hear. Net.bizarre has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. >Besides, someone's been leaking it into net.misc. > It's so drivelous that my kill file spares about 1 post per day! KILL!!! J.A.
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (09/03/85)
> Yes, but .... I agree, but .... What about our phone bills? (If it > weren't for the generosity of one of our neighbors, we'd be off of the > net, or receiving very little, right now.) ---------- If it has no traffic, it costs nothing in phone bills. If it has traffic, it deserves to live. The only valid criterion for existence of a group on this net is whether people will/do use it. If we start trying to impose "worthiness" rules, whether by abdicating that authority to some individual or by accepting consensus decisions, we begin moving inevitably toward the sort of political decisions that will make the net untenable in any useful form. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/07/85)
In article <3500003@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > >> Yes, but .... I agree, but .... What about our phone bills? >---------- >If it has no traffic, it costs nothing in phone bills. If it has >traffic, it deserves to live. The only valid criterion for existence >of a group on this net is whether people will/do use it. Actually, the only valid criterion for the existence of a group is if the people paying the bills for the net accept (or at least tolerate) it. All the other 'rules' in the world are meaningless if the checkbook snaps shut. >If we >start trying to impose "worthiness" rules, whether by abdicating >that authority to some individual or by accepting consensus decisions, >we begin moving inevitably toward the sort of political decisions that >will make the net untenable in any useful form. Assuming the net isn't already untenable in any useful form. There have always been worthiness rules, to tell the truth (or did you miss the wonderful 'discussion' about the creation of net.motss a few years back?) and as volume increases, 'worthiness' probably needs to be tightened. -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui An uninformed opinion is no opinion at all. If you dont know what you're talking about, please try to do it quietly.
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (09/07/85)
In article <3500003@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >If it has no traffic, it costs nothing in phone bills. If it has >traffic, it deserves to live. The only valid criterion for existence >of a group on this net is whether people will/do use it. Hmm....the fact that people use septic tanks and sewers seem to imply a valid criterion for their existence, but I sure am not going to spend any of my time and money to keep one in my computing center or my office. Tell you what...we'll build a road through the middle of your favorite park because 5 or 6 people want it. 6 lanes, guard rails -- the works. If you don't use the road -- fine. But as long as a car or two uses the road every month, we'll say the road has a reason to exist. And if you don't like what it does to the park -- too bad. You don't have to go there anymore. -- Gene "3 months and counting" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (09/11/85)
> In article <3500003@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > >If it has no traffic, it costs nothing in phone bills. If it has > >traffic, it deserves to live. The only valid criterion for existence > >of a group on this net is whether people will/do use it. > Hmm....the fact that people use septic tanks and sewers seem to imply a > valid criterion for their existence, but I sure am not going to spend > any of my time and money to keep one in my computing center or my > office./* Written 10:00 am Sep 7, 1985 by spaf@gatech.CSNET in > ccvaxa:net.news.group */ ---------- What, no bathrooms in your computing center? No wonder you're touchy. The point was (and is) that it doesn't cost you anything to keep an empty group on your system and (unlike the road in your metaphor) it doesn't get in your way or diminish your enjoyment of your system (unless you're horribly upset by the list of groups being n+m pages instead of n). -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (09/12/85)
In article <3500008@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >> Hmm....the fact that people use septic tanks and sewers seem to imply a >> valid criterion for their existence, but I sure am not going to spend >> any of my time and money to keep one in my computing center or my >> office./* Written 10:00 am Sep 7, 1985 by spaf@gatech.CSNET in >> ccvaxa:net.news.group */ >---------- >What, no bathrooms in your computing center? No wonder you're touchy. >The point was (and is) that it doesn't cost you anything to keep an >empty group on your system and (unlike the road in your metaphor) >it doesn't get in your way or diminish your enjoyment of your system >(unless you're horribly upset by the list of groups being n+m pages >instead of n). I disagree with this ... one problem I've had users here mention to me was the sheer size of the newsgroup list. And I have to agree. The only reason I know my way around the list is because I'm a fanatic. Others don't have the time or inclination to read the whole thing. It would be very helpful if it were pruned down some more and better organized. (Both recent projects). To take an example. The common problem of net.wanted.sources and net.sources. Net.sources see's a lot of postings of "I need part x of y, will somebody please mail it to me". Postings like this belong in net.wanted.sources, net.sources. (And has caused many flames in the past). What's the reason that net.wanted.sources isn't used fully? Because people looking at the newsgroup list see net.sources and go no further because net.wanted.sources is so far away. Perhaps a best solution is to partition the net further. (It's happening anyway, maybe we should just go whole hog and do it). It's been suggested frequently recently. I'm saying, have a silly net, a singles net, a politics net, and a unix-wizards net. (silly.all, singles.all, politics.all, and unix.all) (These aren't good names, but you get the idea don't you?) In doing this we would: 1. Allow people to more easily choose the amount of news (and hence, phone money and disk space they're expending). 2. Reduce the total traffic to most sites. 3. Make the name space smaller. 4. Make the "administration" of each "subnet" more responsive to the unique properties of each "subnet". 5. Bring back "small" and "friendly" to descriptions of the net. 6. ??? (What I mean by "it's happening anyway" is that sites all over are cutting back to what they really want. That's a step in this direction. The logical conclusion of which is what I suggested above. A backbone site might decide it isn't going to carry some set of groups any longer because nobody but other backbones are seeing it. But some set of sites over here might want to exchange the newsgroup with some set over there. And, traditionally they've been doing it using the backbone. Now they need another avenue. ..... the rest is left as an excersize to the reader). -- --- David Herron --- ARPA-> ukma!david@ANL-MCS.ARPA --- UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,oddjob}!anlams!ukma!david --- {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma!david Hackin's in me blood. My mother was known as Miss Hacker before she married!