lute@abnjh.UUCP (J. Collymore) (12/21/83)
In an article I read recently posted to the net some good comments were made concerning the removing news groups that do not show any (or little) activity. I agree that this MUST be done. The list of newsgroups is overwhelming, even for an established netnews user such as myself. And when I try to get new users in my system interested, they are usually put-off, or confused by the numerous, hair-split groups. ( certainly don't envy Adam Buschbaum who tries to keep track of all of this for us.) Anyway, understanding that if a newsgroup is neglected, it is to be permanently retired, I propose the following system: 1) Any newsgroup that is of obvious short-term interest (e.g. tv.da for discussions on "The Day After") should be discouraged. Keeping such discussions in the major newsgroup (e.g. net,tv) should be sufficient to meet people's needs. 2) Newsgroups that are seasonal should be given one year (or two passes of the particular season) to see if there is truly interest in that newsgroup. For example, if net.rec.ski were a new newsgroup, it should be given two winters to see if there are people really interested in this group. If there was little activity by the end of the second winter, the newsgroup would be automatically dissolved. NOTE: THE REQUIREMENT FOR REMOVAL OF A NEWSGROUP FROM THE NET WOULD BE TWO OR LESS ARTICLES POSTED PER WEEK TO THE NEWSGROUP IN QUESTION. FOR SEASONAL NEWSGROUPS, THIS RULE WOULD ONLY APPLY DURING THEIR PARTICULAR SEASON. FOR ALL OTHER NEWSGROUPS THIS RULE WOULD BEGIN THE WEEK OF THEIR CREATION, AND THEIR WOULD BE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS. If there are any of you with other comments, please post them to net.news.group, or mail to me. Maybe we can resolve this issue. Jim Collymore
cwb@cbneb.UUCP (Bill Brown) (12/22/83)
I think 2 articles per week as a threshold for destroying a newsgroup is too severe to be applied in general. Some of the newsgroups are quite specialized and have little traffic. But I've gained some important information -- or at least had great interest -- in some of the few articles that appear. What's the harm, really, if a newsgroup sits around and gets used a few times a year? If there's little traffic, there's little cost, either in storage space or in transmission cost. I just don't buy the idea that a large list of newsgroups inhibits new users: I introduced one person to the network BECAUSE of his interest in the subject of one of the little-used newsgroups in net.rec. Let's keep the network rich in its diversity. Bill Brown
mark@elsie.UUCP (12/23/83)
I agree that 2 time a week is too severe a threshold for the destruction of a news group, however, lack of use IS a good reason for deletion. Indeed, it is probably the only reason. Otherwise, in a few years, the .newsrc file could grow toward infinity. Net.misc is a good place for obscure subjects. If a newsgroup receives little use (say 12 articles/year on a moving average so as not to delete seasonal groups) it should be removed. ..elsie!mark -- UUCP: decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!elsie!mark Phone: (301) 496-5688
perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (12/25/83)
[]
I am finding the argument about destroying newsgroups just as confusing
this time as any other. Here is my summary:
For new groups: Against extra groups
- You can Unsubscribe from su-topics - Extra groups make it harder to
that you are not interested in. explain usenet to potential new
For example, you can read net.tv users.
without necessarily seeing articles - Extra groups mean more time req'd
about "The Day After". And why to scan the entire news structure
should a general reader want to hear to find the topics I am interested
about soap operas in.
- A proliferation of groups makes it - Extra groups means most articles
easier to follow a conversation get posted to multiple groups
since each group has a specific - Everyone reads everything anyway
topic as opposed to a number of - Lots of specific groups makes it
specific topics within a general hard to post an article that you
group. wish to send to a general audience.
The above seems to sum up most of the arguments on both sides. If anyone
wishes to augment the list, please do so. I suggest you "s"ave this list
and edit the file to repost the entire list.
Maybe we should take a vote across the network. Is there an easy way
to send a simple questionnaire to every net.site administrator?
--
Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgutguest@onyx.UUCP (12/29/83)
I concur with the suggestions for pruning unused subgroups. In addition, I would like to suggest that news would better be kept in full hierarchical form similar to the way that many Bulletin Board Systems do. To get the flavor of how that works out, try Big Tree "Stuart II" BBS in California at (408) 338-9511, a small BBS where the natives are friendly. It seems absurd to me that, given we're all using Unix and its widely acclaimed tree structured file system, we force news into such an awkward shape: a two level tree. Why not an N-level tree? I'm tired of jumping around trying to find followup messages, or reading sequentially and keeping track of 30 discussions in parallel. Fleshing the structure out to a full tree (hopefully with colateral links for cross-referencing) would help greatly in keeping track of each of our interests. Doug Merritt P.S. I'm not fully up on the net yet, so meanwhile replies directed here (...!amd70!onyx!guest) will reach me. In about a month I'll be at ...!amd70!onyx!molecular!doug.