alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (02/21/84)
Recently, many new groups have been proposed: net.religion.jewish (just created) net.micro.hp41 and just now net.nutrition to name a few With the possible exception of net.religion.jewish, little or no prior discussion of the material suggested has been seen on the net. For example, why do we need a net.nutrition? Has there been a lot of discussion on nutrition lately? Please, a newsgroup should not be created just because someone might think the subject is neat. Look at net.bio -- look at all the ''positive responses'' it got; look at all the support it got; look at all four articles in it now... A newsgroup should be created when a need for it arises, not because someone has a pet subject he likes. Adam
werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (02/22/84)
RRRrrraaaaiiiiidddddd ..... (anyone seen the dead bug yet??? )
I disagree that there should be a number of articles on a new topic before
creating a new newsgroup for it, because it might be impossible to reach
the potential participant by any other way than by creating a new group,
thus condemning the poposal from the start.
Why???? Easy, take the case of "net.nutrition", for example:
Where would you like the topic to be raised? net.misc and net.cooks
might seem obvious, but the problem is that you cannot assume that a
person interested in nutrition reads any of those groups (I don't).
In general, it is often not possible to address the potential audience
of a new group by finding an existing group to address the topic.
So, what's all the paranoia about having a news-group with little or
no activity anyway? Gives all the Monday evening quarterbacks another
chance to boost their ego by saying "I told you so, but you did not
want to listen"!!!
A cooky for everyone, or death .....
werner @ ut-ngp {.UUCP or .ARPA} (sometimes)chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/28/84)
Werner has a good point. Sometimes there might be a topic that comes up
that simply doesn't seem to fit anywhere else, so creating traffic flow to
justify it becomes hard. By requiring traffic flow on a topic before we
create it, and then not giving it a place to generate traffic, we put these
topics right between a large rock and an even larger rock.
As one of the more vocal proponents of the "Don't create it until it proves
itself" school of ballroom dancing, let me attempt to explain WHY I feel
the way I do:
o First, there are places where random topics can be set up. At times
they are inconvenient, but they exist. Net.misc is a good place for
things that don't have any real home. You can also consider playing
conqueror and simply take over a unused topic. Applicative
programming? Why not take over net.research? That is stretching the
point a bit, but if you leave pointers in, say, net.misc and
net.news.group (I hesitate to suggest net.general) that a subject
is starting in a given topic, it will get those interested to look
in. The topic doesn't even have to come close to the subject if you
don't want it to and have enough people to keep the discussion
going (this is the real advantage of an anarchy like the net). If I
want to talk with all of my friends about Third Dynasty Egyptian
Tarot Cards in net.wobegon, I can, and there isn't anything they
can really do about it. Realistically I would use some topic with
NO usage such as net.rec.wood instead of one that simply has
pitiful usage, but you get the idea.
o If there were some way to get rid of the d*mn topics that don't
work out I'd be a lot easier on creating the idiotic things.
net.tv.da was created as a temporary topic and it is STILL around!
(hint! Hint! HINT!) Which means that this is the last time I will
recommend a temporary topic. If a topic can be created with some
assurance that we can get rid of it if it bombs, I'd be a little
more willing to experiment, but reality shows me that once it
exists, it exists forever unless people go to outrageous expense
(and risk bodily harm) to get rid of them.
It isn't the topic that is the problem, it is the net. There are some real
problems with the way the net works and is administered, and we simply
haven't found any good answers to them yet. Until we do, I am going to
continue to scream for a conservative attitude on topics because otherwise
we will overwhelm ourselves with lots of things that nobody uses or
understands...
chuq
--
From the Citadel of the Autarch: Chuqui the Plaid
{fortune,menlo70}!nsc!chuqui P.S. Nuke Wobegon!
Don't dream it, be it!tower@inmet.UUCP (03/01/84)
#R:alice:-261200:inmet:7000043:000:543 inmet!tower Feb 28 23:04:00 1984 The appropriate way to get people to discuss something is to post a request in net.misc or net.wanted: "I would like to discuss nutrition. I have started this discussion in net.cooks. Please read that group, if interested." You can also propose that the list of groups that alice!alb maintains has a description changed. Adam is very good about this. Forming a new group for the sake of just hoping that some discussion will occur, is a waste of resources: both people and machine. -len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA
wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (03/04/84)
> The appropriate way to get people to discuss something is to > post a request in net.misc or net.wanted: I completely disagree. The intended readership of a proposed new group may not read net.misc or net.wanted. I know that I usually don't. I don't have the time. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls