mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (08/30/85)
Perhaps one of the keepers of the network could explain precisely why
it is unwise to create new newsgroups. (Other than the idea of it
getting out of hand.) It seems to me that the best way to see if a
newsgroup is viable is to try it and see if people use it.
What purpose does a moratorium (or a high "magic number") serve?
Why are new groups shot done before they are given a chance?
I understand that Usenet is suffering from signal/noise problems and
sheer volume problems. This is beyond dispute. But what is the
overhead of additional NEWSGROUPS (not additional articles)??
As a news co-administrator at my site, I don't see any administrative
headaches in maintaining 500 newsgroups versus the present ~ 250.
Having more newsgroups would definitely improve the signal/noise ratio
in places like net.micro and similar.
Michael C. Berch
mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcbdavid@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (09/01/85)
In article <11097@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: >Perhaps one of the keepers of the network could explain precisely why >it is unwise to create new newsgroups. (Other than the idea of it >getting out of hand.) It seems to me that the best way to see if a >newsgroup is viable is to try it and see if people use it. >What purpose does a moratorium (or a high "magic number") serve? >Why are new groups shot done before they are given a chance? My first thought was to respond by mail, but the answer that was being generated was intriguing, so ... At first blush, the reason for limiting creation of new groups is to keep the set of groups "stable" and "clean". If the names were created at random then you'd likely end up with clutter. It's the same reason that Gene's going through and cleaning out some deadwood. On the other hand ... We have a bulletin board system on our PR1ME's here on campus. To create a new group, you just make a posting in the group. No hassle, vote creation, or anything else. But the groups go away if they haven't been used for 2 weeks. So you don't have the clutter that I mention above. The amazing thing about this bulletin board is how few "improper" postings there are. Now, there *are* some. There's people who post apparently private messages on it. Others who are flaming idiots. But mostly they're in appropriate groups. And you have groups which stick around all the time. There's one called "The.Far.Bit" which is *really* what net.bizarre wanted to be. It's been around for a year. Then there's a "continuing-soap-opera-net-fiction" that only one person posts to (and not because the software enforces that either). This one person is the author of this "soap-opera". It works. But does it work because it's only 3 machines, that are all in the same room, with a set of users all fairly similar? Or maybe it's because time is strictly accounted for on the machine, and the bulletin board system is notorious for eating cpu time, which partially limits the people who use it? Or maybe it's because of some very watchful systems people on the machine, who make it a point to let people know that they're watching? Or maybe it's just because of the automatically cleaned up newsgroups? What was the size of the net when the "B-news" was designed? Maybe the net is too large for the assumptions built into B-news. For instance. Everybody feels as if it's necessary for *every* group to go to *every* machine. I don't feel as if this is true. As long as there's a good system for advertising the presence of newsgroups and how to connect to the closest feed, then I'd be happy. Suppose I know that nobody at this site wants to read group y. Aren't we wasting our phone money bringing y here so site x can pick it up from us? Couldn't x call up our feed, z, and pick up y there? Administering this optimally could be a pain, and I could see where we'd see lots of postings of "Who can distribute this y to me?". A few methods of doing this (All spun off the top of my head): 1) So, this could be another "duty" of the proposed regional domain coordinators. They could keep a map of the newsgroups in their territory as well as all the mail connections. They'd be the one responsible for hooking z to y. 2) Or maybe, ... remake the network mostly into mailing lists. There'd be one person somewhere who is "in charge" of the newsgroup. But don't put individuals on the mailing list. Instead, use layers of redistribution lists. I would have a redistribution list for each site that has people wanting to read the list. That one site could pass the list on down to other sites, in a chain. One function of the moderator would be to help people find the nearest site to them which already receives the list. Sites wanting to post to a mailing list would be urged to make mail connections to the originating site or a nearby site. 3) Keep the current basic setup but improve the technology underneath. The software as is is fairly general and powerful. It can almost be used for purposes other than connecting to usenet. You just have to avoid some of the hardwired numbers/names. (e.g. net.announce.all, net.general, mod.all, etc). An idea that has floated around recently was to improve the ability to track discussions, by keeping articles around for as long as people are referencing to them. (I know peter, Union-Find!) But we'd have to find ways around the dreaded "Re: Orphaned Response" and various forms of time warps. At any rate, the idea would be to reduce the bandwidth used by removing the need to quote. 4) ? I think I'll stop talking for awhile. This has gone on long enough, and I still need to figure out the crash I caused earlier this evening. (Debugging device driver, you see). -- --- 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!