9212osd@houxa.UUCP (Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz) (02/07/84)
I don't care one way or the other if net.records die a
violent death. What I find amusing is the opinionated opposition of
certain individuals to split net.music among generally
recognized classifications, e.g., net.music.classical.
Check the following data taken from our 'active' file.
Subs Group
---------------
2 net.adm
1 net.astro
5 net.bugs
7 net.games
1 net.jokes
10 net.lang
12 net.micro
1 net.movies
7 net.news
2 net.nlang
12 net.rec
4 net.sport
2 net.tv
1 net.women
I think the split of Groups into Subgroups as already
being done for the above makes perfect sense and makes
running 'readnews' a ** more efficient process ** from the human
and computational point of view.
If your argument is that we must keep the number of groups small,
I would agree with you provided that the efficiency question is
also part of the equation. And remember that groups can be removed
if they go into oblivion.
If your argument is that there is not enough interest in this
network for classical music, I would certainly like to argue that
it's not true. Being a regular reader of net.audio, I know that
there are quite a lot of individuals in USENET that purchase
classical recordings. However, a recording is mentioned in net.audio
for its 'audio' merit, and not necessarily its musical quality.
Recently there was a discussion on the quality of FM radio stations
(transmission wise) and most of the stations mentioned were
mostly classical stations from all over.
If you feel that not enough people have gone in favor of splitting
net.music remember that it is most likely that the ones who could express
interest don't read net.music anymore (nor net.news.group).
I'm one of them, and learned about this debate in mod.ber.
Replies to me at the address below.
--
Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz /AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Road
Room HO-3M-325 201-949-1532 Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733
Path: {{{ucbvax,decvax}!}{ihnp4,harpo}!}houxa!9212osdrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (02/07/84)
Let's take a close look at some of the reasons subgroups have been formed in the past. As Orlando has pointed out, there are a few groups with subgroups out there. Many times it was done for equally bogus reasons as the proposed net.religion and net.music splittings. In most of the cases where the subgrouping was reasonable, the subgroup served to isolate a particular *topic*, rather than a particular *taste*. For instance, net.jokes.d is for discussion of jokes rather than jokes themselves. It would be a different matter if someone suggested net.jokes.lightbulb, net.jokes.helenkeller, net.jokes.knockknock, net.jokes.licenseplates&errormsgs, etc. It's one thing to separate net.games from net.games.video, but quite another to create net.movies AND net.movies.color, net.movies.b&w, net.movies.3d, etc. The problem is not that there is not enough interest in a given topic, such as classical music (there obviously is), but that there's no reason not to submit such articles to net.music. I really don't like the idea of newsgroups to begin with, but if we're going to have them it's counterproductive to have one for every person's individual taste, which is what we'd be approaching. I prefer the concept of keywords, but the netnews stands now it is difficult to control their usage. What's really needed is a way for people to look at a list of articles available to them in a given newsgroup and 'x' off the ones they don't want to read by subject (perhaps through vnews or notes). What it boils down to is this---I hear people saying "There's too much noise (??) in xxx newsgroup, and we would like to see a separate group for articles on the yyy type of xxx, so let's make a subgroup". If you don't like the way a newsgroup "looks" and you'd like to see more articles on your subject of interest within the newsgroup topic, THEN SUBMIT SOME!!!! This sounds a lot like people who complain about the government but don't vote!! -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
ellis@flairvax.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (02/09/84)
In reply to a suggestion to split net.music into classical and popular, here is an old article of mine that first appeared about a year ago: ======================================================================== Perhaps a better split would be between commercial/mass oriented music that's `really climbing the charts this week' and, well, just music. We could call them `net.music.$$$' and `net.music.only'. The $$$ group would be used for articles about Human League, MTV crap, Men at Work, Barry Manilow, Hooked on XXX, discofied jazz, top forty anything, and other stuff you can play at parties. Net.music.only would receive articles ranging from anonymous 9th century composers to aging blues singers, and would encompass such topics as Dick Urine & the Scum Fucs, Tennstedt's latest Mahler release, Art Bears, John Coltrane, Millions of Dead Cops... you know, stuff that empties out a room in 5 seconds flat! ======================================================================== -michael
9212osd@houxa.UUCP (Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz) (02/10/84)
[] Rich says: >It's one thing to separate net.games from net.games.video, but quite >another to create net.movies AND net.movies.color, net.movies.b&w, >net.movies.3d, etc. Remember Rich, there is net.movies.sw serving a very useful purpose, mainly isolating the discussion of the Star Wars movies to a subgroup so that people interested in other movies can talk about them in net.movies without having to read all the Star Wars trivia. And why do you think net.startrek was created? Of course, the flood of articles everywhere else when the movie came out. >The problem is not that there is not enough interest in a given topic, such >as classical music (there obviously is), but that there's no reason not >to submit such articles to net.music. I'm glad you admit there is interest in net.music.classical (or whatever you want to call it). However, the fundamental problem is not the posting of articles but rather the reading of articles (or headers) which are of no interest to those supporting the idea of splitting net.music. And this is not a question of claiming that their tastes in music are more sophisticated or superior to anyone else's, it's because they like that kind of music and KNOW about it. For example, I read net.lang.c and not net.lang.forth, not because FORTH is a bad language, but because I don't know it, and don't have any interest in learning it at this time. >I really don't like the idea of newsgroups to begin with, but if we're >going to have them it's counterproductive to have one for every person's >individual taste, which is what we'd be approaching. What software do you use to read news, an AI project that scans all the text in the netnews directories and let's you pick things that you are interested in only? Your argument also sounds like the domino theory, persuasive but usually lacking a fundamental reality to back it up. Consider, no one is proposing the multiple groups that you and others have suggested with some sarcasm. You are committing nixoicide. We must live with newsgroups while a better software package comes along. >What it boils down to is this---I hear people saying "There's too much >noise (??) in xxx newsgroup, and we would like to see a separate group >for articles on the yyy type of xxx, so let's make a subgroup". If you >don't like the way a newsgroup "looks" and you'd like to see more articles >on your subject of interest within the newsgroup topic, THEN SUBMIT SOME!!!! We are not saying that there is noise in net.music. We are proposing to separate the information content into subgroups so that THE PROCESS OF READING THE INFORMATION BECOMES MORE EFFICIENT. Believe me, that's what it all boils down to. A subgroup might be of some inconvenience to a submitter (really?), but it is highly convenient for the readers (which are the BIG majority in USENET). This is enough for this week. -- Orlando Sotomayor-Diaz /AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Road Room HO-3M-325 201-949-1532 Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733 Path: {{{ucbvax,decvax}!}{ihnp4,harpo}!}houxa!9212osd
sdh@rabbit.UUCP (S. Hawley) (02/10/84)
With all this talk about net.records, net.music, split-ups etc. I think its about time for net.music.split, don't you? :-) "And the worms ate into his brain" Flink Poyd Steve Hawley <allegra,alice>!rabbit!sdh Send flames. I dare you.