woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (05/14/84)
Chuqui has hit the nail on the head: we *should* delete new topics that
don't make the grade, "WHATEVER THE GRADE IS DEFINED TO BE" (words Chuq's,
emphasis mine). I think we need to determine some sort of rigid criteria
for newsgroup survival. I personally agree with Chuq about wobegon, why
should one radio show have its own top-level group? I remember the screams
when someone created net.gdead and the Deadheads started using it. Somehow,
that group got killed off, and now the Dead articles are buried in the morass
that has become net.music, which I no longer have time to read. Therefore,
because people so adamantly oppose both the creation and deletion of
newsgroups, I miss many articles I might like to read, just because I don't
have hours every night to 'n' the other articles. I personally feel we need
*more* groups. Therefore, I make the following suggestions, first admitting
my almost total ignorance of how the news software really works, and hence
I don't know if there are good reasons for not doing some of these:
1) Increase the limit on the number of newsgroups, together with making
the readnews search of this mysterious "active" file more efficient
(how about sorting the active file so efficient binary searches could
be used by readnews?). This might help eliminate some of the objections
to creation of subgroups.
2) Implement Adam Bushbaum's recent comment: when a new topic is created,
see if there is an old one that could be deleted to make room for it.
3) Discourage creation of very specific top-level newsgroups (such as
net.wobegon or net.gdead), while encouraging the creation of subgroups
for active topics that fit naturally on the newsgroup tree (such as
net.music.rock and net.sport.baseball), thus *encouraging* discussion
of less common topics due to less articles that have to be 'n'ed in
the parent group (like jazz in net.music or tae kwan do in net.sport).
4) (Enter flame-attraction mode) Implement some sort of automatic deletion
of newsgroups after a certain period without use and/or with minimal use,
and with manual intervention in cases where multiple groups exist for
the same topic (as in the net.music and net.records debate). Also, avoid
creation of groups like this.
5) (more flames) ORGANIZE THE CREATION OF NEWSGROUPS. While this may sound
like USENET, Inc., that isn't what I am suggesting. I'm not sure exactly
what it is I *am* suggesting here, I'd just like to get the creative
juices flowing. I would like to see some small group of people,
maybe just one at a time, be responsible for creating and deleting
newsgroups. Maybe we could elect a Newsgroup monitor with voting by
Email? Maybe this is a rotten idea, but almost anything would be better
than the endless, boring debates (with the same people always on each
side of an issue, myself included) that usually result in someone
unilaterally creating the wrong group, as in net.music.classical. What
we really needed was net.music.rock, so that net.music wouldn't be
swamped with rock articles, stifling discussion of other types. Creating
net.music.classical solves the problem for classical music types, but
what about jazz? Blues? They will still be swamped, and there are still
too many articles in net.music for me to read (the recent summary I saw
in mod.ber claimed over 20 articles a day!). What we really need is some
sort of clearly stated, easily appliable rules for creation and deletion
of groups. I have some ideas, and if I ever have time, I will post
some of them in a future posting, but this is getting long.
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
!hao!woods
"Will we leave this place an empty stone?"alb@alice.UUCP (05/15/84)
A few comments on Greg's comments: 1) Unless you remove the order of presentation from the active file, you cannot force any one method of sorting that file on any site. People must be free (well, in this case, sites as a whole) to choose how they want their news presented. 2) I don't remember making that comment?? I've said in the past that BEFORE a group is created, see if there is already an existing one that would suit its needs. In many cases, there is one. Adam
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (05/16/84)
Sorry, Adam, I forgot that some of the features of our "readnews" are local
hacks. In particluar, on our system, articles are presented to each user in
the order that s/he has them in the .newsrc file. This allows sorting of
groups on an individual basis. Since it was done here, ipso facto it can be
done. And I am fairly certain that I did read something to the effect that if
we create a new group, we should look for an old one that could be deleted
in one of your articles somewhere.
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!stcvax | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
!hao!woods
"Will we leave this place an empty stone?"