tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (12/06/89)
The volume in rec.autos has been getting quite high, and I've been
thinking for a while about ideas for splitting the newsgroup to
make it more manageable. I've given thought to, but discarded,
rec.autos.minivan, rec.autos.radar, rec.autos.55mph, rec.autos.my-
car-is-better-than-yours and rec.autos.all-american-cars-suck. :)
The blinding flash of innovation that I had this morning made sense
of it all, doing a logical split and even distributing the traffic
fairly evenly. Consider the following newsgroup descriptions:
rec.autos Discussions about cars
rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph
Of course, we already have
rec.autos.sport Discussions about motorsports
rec.autos.tech Discussions about maintaining and repairing cars
Does the traffic volume warrant this? I believe so; from Nov 27 through
Dec 5, we had 320 articles in rec.autos, or 40 articles a day. I roughly
divided these into the new categories, and I came up with:
rec.autos 144
rec.autos.driving 166
rec.autos.tech 9 (misposted into rec.autos)
alt.flame 1 (misposted into rec.autos)
What will this gain us? It will make it possible to easily follow either
the car discussions or the driving discussions only. If you want to read
both, you can simply subscribe to both groups.
If the discussion is generally positive, I will be posting a call for
votes for rec.autos.driving in accordance with the guidelines after
Christmas, on about Dec 27.
\tom haapanen
"now, you didn't really expect tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu
my views to have anything to do watmims research group
with my employer's, did you?" university of waterloo
"I don't even know what street Canada is on" -- Al Caponewilliamsk@tolstoy.UUCP (Kevin W. Williams) (12/06/89)
In article <315@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: > The volume in rec.autos has been getting quite high, and I've been > thinking for a while about ideas for splitting the newsgroup to > make it more manageable. I've given thought to, but discarded, > rec.autos.minivan, rec.autos.radar, rec.autos.55mph, rec.autos.my- > car-is-better-than-yours and rec.autos.all-american-cars-suck. :) > > > rec.autos Discussions about cars > rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph I like it. Any more discussions about speeding, light flashing to signal, etc. and I will go nuts. And, let's make sure that no group can discuss sudden acceleration. Kevin Wayne Williams UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk Remember : Brute force has an elegance all its own.
someone@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Mike Benefield) (12/07/89)
In article <315@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >rec.autos Discussions about cars >rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph Positively smashing idea chap!! I usually find myself reading about 20% of the daily articles, and sifting through all the articles can be tedious. Lets here it for rec.autos.driving!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Benefield UUCP: (seismo!umcp-cs | allegra!hopkins)!jhunix!someone Internet: someone@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu | zap!pow!boom!bang ^^^^^^^ this isn't a joke -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (12/07/89)
Since driving isn't always done in automobiles, I suggest "rec.driving". -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (12/07/89)
In article <257D551C.14828@ateng.com>, Chip Salzenberg writes:
*Since driving isn't always done in automobiles, I suggest "rec.driving".
i'm not convinced this would really work; the discussions that
tom wants to move to rec.autos.driving would be harder to divert
with the froup moved outside of the rec.autos.* hierarchy; the
group would be harder to find, and i'm not convinced that the
non-automotive traffic would actually appear.
i could be convinced otherwise, but for now, i like tom's proposal
better.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
``i've got a girlfriend with bows in her hair,
and nothing is better than that'' -- David Byrnechip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (12/07/89)
According to welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty): >In article <257D551C.14828@ateng.com>, Chip Salzenberg writes: >*Since driving isn't always done in automobiles, I suggest "rec.driving". > >i'm not convinced this would really work [...] Groups should have appropriate names based on their charter, not on the current groups where readers might be found. Once you've started choosing names based on non-namespace criteria, you've embarked on a journey that can only end at comp.women and sci.aquaria. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."
ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chris Newbold) (12/08/89)
In article <315@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >rec.autos Discussions about cars >rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph I think that it's a great idea. With all of the recent "discussions" about driving habits, ability, and philosophy, I think we need to break this sort of thing off into it's own group. Go for it!!! -- >>>> Chris Newbold <<<< * "If you fool around with a thing for very long you * University of Rochester * will screw it up." * Disclaimer: "All warranties expire upon payment of invoice." ctne_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu * uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ctne_ltd@uunet
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (12/08/89)
In article <257E8524.24017@ateng.com>, Chip Salzenberg writes: *According to welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty): *>In article <257D551C.14828@ateng.com>, Chip Salzenberg writes: *>*Since driving isn't always done in automobiles, I suggest "rec.driving". *>i'm not convinced this would really work [...] *Groups should have appropriate names based on their charter, not on the *current groups where readers might be found. depends. what are the other `driving' discussions that you have in mind. some naming philosophies are based on the notion of providing groups to handle existing traffic; we can easily demonstrate traffic from rec.autos for a driving group. i still don't see the case for rec.driving as having been made. *Once you've started choosing names based on non-namespace criteria, you've *embarked on a journey that can only end at comp.women and sci.aquaria. let's not invoke old controversies; doing so runs a good chance of making this into another religious war over a group name (besides, i may not necessarily agree with you over comp.women and sci.aquaria.) richard -- richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York ..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ``i've got a girlfriend with bows in her hair, and nothing is better than that'' -- David Byrne
MICHAEL@MAINE (12/08/89)
Since there isn't any rec.trucks and rec.boats really doesn't apply to driving, that leaves rec.motorcycles as the only other newsgroup that might have an interest in calling it rec.driving. However, I suspect that the purpose of the group (as suggested) is to discuss automobile driving, not driving in general. So rec.autos.driving makes sense in that respect. I like the idea of rec.autos.driving, personally. Michael Johnson "We are the Priests of the Temples University of Maine System of Syrinx. Our great computers fill Computing and Data Processing Services the hallowed halls." - Neil Peart
mikey@ontek.UUCP (Michael E. Lee) (12/09/89)
In article <315@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: | ... Consider the following newsgroup descriptions: | | rec.autos Discussions about cars | rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph I'm pretty sure everyone who reads rec.autos will end up reading rec.autos.driving/rec.driving too. The cross- and mis- posting between rec.autos.tech and rec.autos is bad enough. Threads of conversation in rec.autos frequently alternate between "red cars", "going fast" "speeding tickets", "accidents" and "unintended acceleration". Any of those topics will end up being cross posted, and instead of reading one newsgroups with 50 articles a day, I'll end up reading two newsgroups each with the same cross-posted 50 articles in them. No thanks. It's always been my opinion that volume is best dealt with using the "k" key, not by splitting newsgroups. _K_r_i_l_l-_M_a_n mikey@ontek.uucp
msir_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Sirota) (12/10/89)
In article <832@ontek.UUCP> mikey@ontek.UUCP (Michael E. Lee) writes: > I'm pretty sure everyone who reads rec.autos will end up reading > rec.autos.driving/rec.driving too. I will only read rec.autos.driving, and forego rec.autos. > It's always been my opinion that volume is best dealt with using > the "k" key, not by splitting newsgroups. I do that, too... But hopefully I'd have to hit the 'k' key fewer times per day. -- Mark Sirota - University of Rochester, Rochester, NY Internet: msir_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu UUCP: {decvax,harvard,ames,rutgers}!rochester!ur-cc!msir_ltd
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (12/11/89)
If this proposal comes to a vote I would vote against:
> rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph
But I would vote for:
* talk.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph
(or talk.autos.driving or talk.driving.autos if either was widely preferred.)
Followups are directed to news.groups.
--
Mark Brader, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com C unions never strike!
This article is in the public domain.peteg@sequent.UUCP (Pete Gibson) (12/12/89)
>In article <315@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >rec.autos Discussions about cars >rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph I thinks this is a great idea One more "yes" vote to the tally, please. Pete peteg@sequent.UUCP ..{!tektronix}!sequent!peteg
jnk6393@cec1.wustl.edu (Jordan Nathaniel Kimberg) (12/13/89)
>In article <315@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >rec.autos Discussions about cars >rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph Damn good idea... My thoughts on the matter are that it doesn't hurt people who don't want the split to subscribe to two newsgroups (unless they have something against their reading material being organized). As for us people who could care less about half of the material, it wastes valuable time "killing" all subjects I don't care about, when I have tons of other stuff to sort through. I'm ready to vote... - Jordan Kimberg - Wash U in St Louis
gpitcher@edpmgt.UUCP (Glenn Pitcher) (12/13/89)
In article <315@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: > The volume in rec.autos has been getting quite high, and I've been > thinking for a while about ideas for splitting the newsgroup to > make it more manageable. I've given thought to, but discarded, > rec.autos.minivan, rec.autos.radar, rec.autos.55mph, rec.autos.my- > car-is-better-than-yours and rec.autos.all-american-cars-suck. :) > > The blinding flash of innovation that I had this morning made sense > of it all, doing a logical split and even distributing the traffic > fairly evenly. Consider the following newsgroup descriptions: > > rec.autos Discussions about cars > rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph > > Of course, we already have > > rec.autos.sport Discussions about motorsports > rec.autos.tech Discussions about maintaining and repairing cars > > Does the traffic volume warrant this? I believe so; from Nov 27 through > Dec 5, we had 320 articles in rec.autos, or 40 articles a day. I roughly > divided these into the new categories, and I came up with: > > rec.autos 144 > rec.autos.driving 166 > rec.autos.tech 9 (misposted into rec.autos) > alt.flame 1 (misposted into rec.autos) > > What will this gain us? It will make it possible to easily follow either > the car discussions or the driving discussions only. If you want to read > both, you can simply subscribe to both groups. > > If the discussion is generally positive, I will be posting a call for > votes for rec.autos.driving in accordance with the guidelines after > Christmas, on about Dec 27. > I agree with this is 100%. Let's do it!! (Just thought I'd get my two bits in this time) -- Glenn Pitcher UUCP: {crash,ucsd}!edpmgt!gpitcher Programmer/Analyst & ARPA: Too many $$$ Unix Guru in training BITNET: A net for runaway programs EDP Management, Inc. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
whs70@pyuxe.UUCP (W. H. Sohl) (12/14/89)
> In article <315@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: > > The volume in rec.autos has been getting quite high, and I've been > > thinking for a while about ideas for splitting the newsgroup to > > make it more manageable. > > > > rec.autos Discussions about cars > > rec.autos.driving Discussions about driving, radar detectors, fines, 55 mph > I like the proposed split, it will make perusing the articles much more easily done. Go for it. Bill Sohl