chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (12/02/84)
In case you haven't noticed, Usenet is spread over a rather wide geographic
area. Like, for example, the earth. There are sites in Asia, in Australia,
in Europe and in the United States and Canada.
The thought of running a personal advertisement over that area and have any
chance of having something positive happen is ludicrous.
I keep a rather close eye on the net. I talk to a lot of people out there
(you should see my mailbox...) As one of the more visible users of
net.singles, I hear a lot about the things happening to those people. The
reality is that using the net as a communication link for romantic
relationships is silly. Relationships are hard enough to sustain as it is--
chances are any person you DO start corresponding with is across the
country, perhaps across the world. This is a handicap that very few
relationships can survive.
This is not so say that net-based romances don't exist. They do, and some
of them flourish. Many of them die out, though, because of the distance.
The few that don't seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule. And
invariably the couple came together not because they were looking for
someone else, but because they found they had things in common that they
could talk about, and did. The best relationships aren't those that people
went looking for, they are ones that happened despite all of the obstacles
this silly network can put up between you. That isn't something you can
help by setting up a place for people to go searching.
If you really want to place ads, put them in your local paper where you
have some chance of getting them answered by someone that won't cost you a
small mint in phone bills. If you are interested in meeting people on the
net, find the ones that you enjoy reading and write to them. Private mail
is a wonderful thing-- you can talk to someone without having thousands of
voyeurs peeking over your shoulder.
Who know? You might just meet the right person out there. It DOES happen,
occasionally. But don't count on it.
chuq
--
From the center of a Plaid pentagram: Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA
~But you know, monsieur, that as long as she wears the claw of the dragon
upon her breast you can do nothing-- her soul belongs to me!~chabot@amber.DEC (L S Chabot) (12/04/84)
Chuq argues against the effectiveness mod.personal because of the geographic range of usenet; I would present an example and dissent. I receive the New York Review of Books. At the back of each issue is a one to two page personals section. The New York Review of Books has a large distribution--you can tell just by looking at the personals: there are items from the US and Canada, and also London, every issue (true, I rarely see items from the Continent or from Australia or from Asia)(I also rarely read the personals). One might say that these people would do better off posting something in a local paper, but there are reasons *not* to do this. First off, is the matter of like interests: these people are looking for the kind of person who reads the New York Review of Books. Similarly, those posting personals to a usenet newsgroup know that those who respond to the posting are going to be people with some sort of interest or job involving computers. It may be necessary for those posting and responding to be realistic about geographical distances. "Looking for someone in the Trona area who also enjoys going to the dump and shooting rats"--it may be a let-down for someone in the armpit of Indiana to read this and decide that someone compatible lives in the armpit of California, or it may mean considering relocating, or maybe even plane flights for visiting and rat-bagging. The issues of geographic distance for the individuals involved are not significant. What is more significant is do sites really want to pay for the expense of mod.personal in terms of any increase in phone bills and disk usage. It is hard to tell, now, what percentage of usenet costs this would involve. Considering that currently we do have the behavior of contributors and readers approaching other contributors through mail based on what they've read by the latter in newsgroup postings, mod.personal would be a natural evolvement. My guess is that it would also not significantly increase usenet load--we really can't do any more than guess at this point in time. I've never had any involvement or wish to engage in a dating service or use of a personals column; I've been lucky not to have been quite so lonely, so far. But whether or not I have any use for such, others do--I could not speak against mod.personal just because it would not benefit me. Related side issue: in net.sf-lovers yesterday I posted a book pointer to _Sleepless_Nights_in_the_Procrustean_Bed_, a volume of essays by Harlan Ellison. One of the items, I just remembered, was a column he'd written about a video dating service that started in Westwood, Great Expectations. He had positive things to say about that particular organization; there was also a delicate discussion about people's search for love as expressed by the gentle plea: "Why don't you give me a chance". L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA shadow: [ISSN 0018-9162 v17 #10 p7, bottom vt100, col3, next to next to last]
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (12/06/84)
L S Chabot writes: > What is more significant is do sites really want to pay for > the expense of mod.personal in terms of any increase in phone bills and disk > usage. It is hard to tell, now, what percentage of usenet costs this would > involve. Considering that currently we do have the behavior of contributors > and readers approaching other contributors through mail based on what they've > read by the latter in newsgroup postings, mod.personal would be a natural > evolvement. My guess is that it would also not significantly increase usenet > load--we really can't do any more than guess at this point in time. > > But whether or not I have any use for such, others do--I could not speak > against mod.personal just because it would not benefit me. Ah, but I hear comments like netnews is full of junk all the time. With users you can tell them to unsubscribe. With management it's not so easy. News is an easy thing to attack because it's so big and visible; unless you use it the benefits are hard to see. Mail is small, at least the piece visible to the user, and much more clearly important. I think I can always justify mail service. Therefore, net people approaching others through mail will probably not be noticed or questioned. The natural evolution to mod.personals, however, is one more straw on the camel's back. Here in the San Francisco bay area, I am faced with the loss of two pretty good connections because their management looked at it and saw a lot of nontechnical stuff. So far, I have been lucky with regard to my management. But who knows how long that will last. Well anyway, I just wanted to say that some people are entitled to (and do) speak against things which do not benefit them. Not me but the managers whose money we spend every day. -- I'm not a programmer, I'm a hardware type. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5790 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/06/84)
Just to throw a monkey wrench into all this (tee hee), I have heard
complaints about the suitableness of mod.personal and what it costs
to run this network and who pays for it and our reputation is at
stake here and on and on and on ...
Jeez, you take this SERIOUSLY? Let me show you something:
1746 net.politics* These numbers represent the
1642 unix-wizards number of (512-byte) blocks
1513 net.religion* currently being used by these
718 net.jokes* newsgroups at our site. The
706 net.lang.c newsgroups marked with (*) are
698 net.flame* expired after 10 days, while
499 net.singles* the others are expired after 20
497 net.unix days.
I presume these quantities are relatively similar at other sites;
maybe even some don't expire the ``uninteresting'' groups early.
So what is this pretense that something valuable and important
will somehow be degraded by creating a mod.personal? I doubt it
would be noticed in all this junk....
[ This is neither an argument for nor against mod.personal, but
submitted simply to discourage pretentiousness ].
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam
37 22'50" N / 122 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (12/09/84)
> From: chabot@amber.DEC (L S Chabot) > The issues of geographic distance for the individuals involved are not > significant. What is more significant is do sites really want to pay for > the expense of mod.personal in terms of any increase in phone bills and disk > usage. It is hard to tell, now, what percentage of usenet costs this would > involve. Considering that currently we do have the behavior of contributors > and readers approaching other contributors through mail based on what they've > read by the latter in newsgroup postings, mod.personal would be a natural > evolvement. My guess is that it would also not significantly increase usenet > load--we really can't do any more than guess at this point in time. I think the real issue is whether or not mod.personals is an appropriate group for USENET, not whether it will cost hosts more money or what the geographic distances between posters are. Lately, there has been a rash of "creeping newsgroup-creationism", or simply, groups have popped up just because someone thought they ought to be there, without considering whether there was actually a need for it. (Example: net.forsale.) The posting of ads selling cars, etc. may be reasonable, but posting personal ads is getting a little extreme. A suggestion for those who wish a "personal" newsgroup -- set up a mailing list with interested parties who want to swap information about each other. If it is a good list, it will soon pick up and a lot of people will join. Perhaps you could even create an e-mail dating service, but I don't think USENET should be used as a vehicle for this. -- Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ... Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
hagouel@ittvax.UUCP (Jack Hagouel) (12/10/84)
From Chuq: > In case you haven't noticed, Usenet is spread over a rather wide geographic > area. Like, for example, the earth. There are sites in Asia, in Australia, > in Europe and in the United States and Canada. > > The thought of running a personal advertisement over that area and have any > chance of having something positive happen is ludicrous. > It is always possible to assign moderators for densely (net)populated areas like NY, NJ, SF, LA and possibly campuses. This will limit the distribution to a manageable location. I think that personal ads on the network is a terrific idea. It allows contact of people with similar intrerests (i.e. list groups subscribed) in a non-invasive manner (exchange of messages is different than exchange of addresses or telephones) Furthermore, it will increase the network user community by offering a (popular?) service which does not exist today. Jack