werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (02/21/84)
RRRaaaiiidddd ..... (still have not heard that the bug is dead)
Why??? Let's weigh the benefits versus the costs, ok?
(And, I hope, I got the facts right, more of less)
The fact that someone wants a group means that I have to read
at least ONE message. If a simple "U" to that one message
(the initial group announcement in the new group) saves me from
having to say "n" in the future, great. An extra line in my
file ".newsrc" won't bother me, an extra 500 won't either.
A group which "dies" because of a lack of messages, dies a
natural death - the tombstone is one line in everyone's
file ".newsrc". Before doing a "rmgroup" after a "long"
period of silence, one last message should be posted to
see if anyone cares.
A few improvements in "readnews" might be helpful, of course.
1) Given that many people don't read "net.news.group" where
the "new-group-discussion SHOULD take place", they
never find out about it, nor get bothered by it.
However, depending how their options are set, they might
or might not find out when a new group has been created.
A new option might help, which controls if either
a) you want to be informed IMMEDIATELY of all new groups
once a message appears there.
b) you want to be informed only ON REQUEST of such groups
c) you want to get a message at the end of a "readnews"
session, informing you of all new groups, and
get quizzed, which one's you want to read.
If it's not clear why, let me just say, that the fact that
I unsubscribe to net.tv and net.tv.* does not mean would not be
interested in net.tv.60-minutes (should anyone care for it)
2) Each system might automatically monitor all news-groups it
subscribes to, and when a lack of activity is observed for
a period of X, a query-message should be posted to a control
group inquiring of any activity was seen elsewhere. A response
might also be generated automatically by other sites which have
seen recent activity. No replies to repeated inquiries should
result in a "rmgroup" which, by the way, could also result
in automatic removal of the "tombstone-line" in everyone's
file ".newsrc". It gets created, automatically, why not
delete it automatically ??? Sounds like a minor software
addition - just my ignorant guess.
Before I go on, I'll wait on responses, probably, pointing out
what I overlook in important factors speaking against my general
"liberal" attitude towards new groups.
But I, definitely, agree with an earlier suggestion, speaking out
against the need for general concensus before creating a new group
requested by a minority (of one??)
Flames in an educated tone are always welcome ..... others get
ignored or replied to in kind.
Cheers, werner @ ut-ngp {.UUCP or .ARPA}ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (02/27/84)
A quote from a recent article <843@cvl.UUCP> in net.general explains
the problem with too many newsgroups better than I could:
I am so sorry to have put a test message on net.general .
I am a newcomer here and so have pity on me.I usually read very little
netnews and transmit very rarely.I wanted to send something important
and before doing that I wanted to make sure that messages really get
sent.Hence the test message .I was not aware of the existence of
net.test ,a group meant solely for testing purposes .I had also not
read about this in net.announce. There are so many newsgroups that
a newcomer does not know what to read and what not to read ....
Like it or not, new users are constantly joining and (often) misusing
the net. Every added newsgroup makes the problem a little bit worse.
Kenneth Almquisttrb@masscomp.UUCP (02/27/84)
Kenneth Almquist says: A quote from a recent article <843@cvl.UUCP> in net.general explains the problem with too many newsgroups better than I could: ... There are so many newsgroups that a newcomer does not know what to read and what not to read .... Like it or not, new users are constantly joining and (often) misusing the net. Every added newsgroup makes the problem a little bit worse. Come on, Kenneth, this new user's ignorance is not evidence that every added newsgroup makes the problem a little bit worse. It's just evidence that the new user is confused, and that the new user's negligent system administrator didn't point him at the easily available summary documents (which come out at the beginning of each month in net.announce). I say, the more we segregate individual topic streams, the more useful netnews will be. This segregation will NOT affect the amount of data which flows, now will it? I find it hard to belive that new netnews users find out about netnews enough to know that it's there but not enough to find out that their test messages will go all over the world. I've suggested it before, and I'll suggest it now. readnews/vnews/notes should have pointers to proper documentation in the help command menus. Andy Tannenbaum Masscomp Inc Westford MA (617) 692-6200 x274
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (02/28/84)
The key to the problem of new users is for sys admins to make SURE
that net.announce IS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ACTIVE FILE, so that
new users can't get into the news system at all without hitting it.
Mark has already posted an article about this to net.news.sa and
the like.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave