spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (07/30/85)
(My apologies to readers of net.news.group if you see this twice -- inews
barfed when I tried to feed this to all 14 groups at once).
I just recently deleted a number of newsgroups that had seen minimal or
no use in the last few months. Since that time, I have gotten mail
from a few people suggesting other candidates for removal based on
their lack of activity. It seems to make sense that if we won't create
a new newsgroup without an indication of potential use, there is no
justification for keeping newsgroups which get no significant use after
creation.
Site "gatech" has a news history of about 3 years. That is, all our
newsgroup numbering started when we came on the net about 3 years ago.
Thus, I have a pretty good indication of overall activity on a
newsgroup by checking our active file.
The following newsgroups have had little use recently and less than 150
articles in the last three years. For many of the groups, that
includes their entire lifespan. Additionally, it appears that anywhere
from 1/2 to 2/3 of the articles posted to many of these groups are
cross-posted to other, currently active groups. There seems to be
little need to keep these groups around.
Unless someone provides me with a good reason not to, I will be
removing the following groups on or about August 15:
net.bugs.v7
net.decus
net.games.go
net.lang.apl
net.math.symbolic
net.micro.432
net.notes
net.rec.birds
net.rec.scuba
net.rec.skydive
net.std
net.theater
net.usoft
--
Gene "4 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!spafabc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (07/31/85)
I sure would like to see activity on net.math.symbolic. At the very
least, I'd like to see it kept around for a little while longer.
Judging a serious newsgroup like this based upon its May-Aug traffic is
somewhat invalid since this is the time of low academic activity.
I have been the beneficiary of net.math.symbolic on more than one
occasion. It is my principal means of communication with other uses of
Macsyma, Maple, and other systems. Any system that can support
net.jokes on the basis of its traffic volume should be able to tolerate
something like net.math.symbolic until this relatively new field catches
on a little more.
Cheers,
Brint
ARPA: abc@brl.arpa
UUCP: ...{decvax,cbosgd}!brl-bmd!abc
Dr Brinton Cooper
U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory
Attn: AMXBR-SECAD (Cooper)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066
Offc: 301 278-6883 AV: 298-6883 FTS: 939-6883gws@cbnap.UUCP (Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)) (07/31/85)
>I just recently deleted a number of newsgroups that had seen minimal or >no use in the last few months. Since that time, I have gotten mail >from a few people suggesting other candidates for removal based on >their lack of activity. It seems to make sense that if we won't create >a new newsgroup without an indication of potential use, there is no >justification for keeping newsgroups which get no significant use after >creation. > >Site "gatech" has a news history of about 3 years. That is, all our >newsgroup numbering started when we came on the net about 3 years ago. >Thus, I have a pretty good indication of overall activity on a >newsgroup by checking our active file. > >The following newsgroups have had little use recently and less than 150 >articles in the last three years. For many of the groups, that >includes their entire lifespan. Additionally, it appears that anywhere >from 1/2 to 2/3 of the articles posted to many of these groups are >cross-posted to other, currently active groups. There seems to be >little need to keep these groups around. > >Unless someone provides me with a good reason not to, I will be >removing the following groups on or about August 15: > net.bugs.v7 > net.decus > net.games.go > net.lang.apl > net.math.symbolic > net.micro.432 > net.notes > net.rec.birds > net.rec.scuba > net.rec.skydive > net.std > net.theater > net.usoft > Gene; I agree about removal of all your listed groups, but net.decus. I believe that it should stay. It seems to me (in my short net life) that net.decus has a small, but steady flow of traffic. net.decus seems to have about twice the traffic that net.usenix, but I doubt that anyone will get rid of that news group. tnx Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) ihnp4!cbnap!gws AT&T Bell Labs (Columbus, Oh) -- test of sig file
kogeddes@watmum.UUCP (Keith O. Geddes) (08/01/85)
I would not like to see net.math.symbolic disappear. I anticipate that activity in this newsgroup is very likely to pick up substantially over the next couple of years. Those of us in the Maple group at Waterloo have not been very active in net.math.symbolic news items up until now, but given the fact that we are a very active group developing Maple and are about to distribute Maple to substantially more users than has been the case in the past, my guess is that we will find ourselves communicating much more with users of Maple, and Macsyma, Reduce, etc., through this news group.
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (08/01/85)
In article <696@gatech.CSNET> spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) writes: >Unless someone provides me with a good reason not to, I will be >removing the following groups on or about August 15: ... > net.math.symbolic ... I can't give you a good reson to keep this newsgroup, but it occasionally does have articles, certainly not quite as many as net.unix and others. I suppose there is nothing wrong with discussing symbolic math in net.math; after all there isn't a net.math.calculus, or net.math.geometry, yet occasional discussions about this branch of mathematics are discussed here. -- Ken Turkowski @ CADLINC, Menlo Park, CA UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,nsc,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.ARPA
dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) (08/02/85)
In article <29@cbnap.UUCP> gws@cbnap.UUCP (Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) writes: ... >>removing the following groups on or about August 15: >> net.decus ... > Gene; I agree about removal of all your listed groups, but > net.decus. I believe that it should stay. ... I too read net.decus, and find its contents of some use. It seems to be used only to announce DECUS meetings. But unlike Gary I'd be happy to see it go, IFF there was somewhere else to post such announcements - net.announce would seem a possibility so long as those meetings (e.g. many LUG meetings) which did not justify international attendance had a distribution of na,uk etc..
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (08/06/85)
I feel very strongly that net.bugs.v7 should not go away.
It serves an extremely useful purpose, and cross-posting is
to be expected. We run v7 here. If someone finds a bug which
is present in (say) 4BSD and v7, they'll cross-post to those
two groups. I, needless to say, do not read net.bugs.4bsd.
I read everything in net.bugs.v7 VERY carefully. I also
post to it when I discover bugs which others may want to know.
There are still lots of v7 sites out there.
There is an important distinction between little-used leisure
groups (net.rec.whatever) and little-used technical groups
which have a specific and well-defined purpose. If even ten
articles a year appear in net.bugs.v7, and five of those mention
bugs which are present on my machine, I sure want access to them.
Remember, not everyone can keep up with net.unix-wizards or other
high-volume groups where such bugs might be reported.
Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{ ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!daveheiby@cuae2.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (08/07/85)
In article <201@stl.UUCP> dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) writes: > But unlike Gary I'd be happy >to see it go, IFF there was somewhere else to post such announcements There is now such a place. It is called mod.newprod. See the initial posting there for information. -- Ron Heiby (NAC|ihnp4!cuae2!heiby) Moderator: mod.newprod, mod.unix AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL (312) 810-6109
ljdickey@watmath.UUCP (Lee Dickey) (08/09/85)
I write in favor of net.lang.apl, net.math.symbolic, and certain other low use groups. There are several points to be made: (1) One of the strengths of the net is the very existence of a large number of specialized groups. The removal of specialized groups weakens the net, and forces those who DO watch these groups to wade through a lot of other material that is of not necessarily of interest to them. (2) The maintenance cost of a group is small, expecially if the usage is small. (3) Low usage does not necessarily mean low utility.
jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) (08/10/85)
[Just who was that masked line-eater, anyway?] Just another factor, offered for your consideration. My impression, which could well be erroneous, is that a number of the small, specialized groups being marked for extinction are of interest to, or of major benefit to, academics. Please notice during what season of the year this extinction proposal was made. Please note that, at least where I come from, this season of the year is *between semesters*. It is *summer vacation time*. Many people are *not here*. I would think that a significant number of individual netters affected by the extinction of these groups have not yet even seen the proposal. In fairness to them, I suggest the following: 1. No action be taken on the current extinction proposal. 2. The proposal be reissued *after* the fall semester starts (say abut the 2nd week of September). As I said, for your consideration. (I am not an academic, but some of my best friends are.) -- -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee (...ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jgd)