alb@alice.UUCP (12/15/83)
Enough of this .expert stuff already! The one experiment in this sort of subgroup has failed: Most everyone posts to both net.astro and net.astro.expert. Sure, a new group should be created with the idea of possible subgroups in the future, but subgroups should NEVER be created until a need for them is shown. Specifically, a biology group? Fine. net.bio is the proper choice, since it is short enough to allow subgroups. But to create net.bio.expert right off is stupid. Wait and see if it's needed first. Frankly, I think we should remove net.astro.expert -- it's not serving any useful purpose. Adam
wls@astrovax.UUCP (12/15/83)
> Frankly, I think we should remove > net.astro.expert -- it's not serving any useful purpose. > Adam I vehemently disagree. Give it time. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton}!astrovax!wls
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (12/16/83)
Hear, Hear!!!! I've got to agree that *degrees* of difference are awfully hard to judge, for both a submitter and a reader. There's got to ba a lot of "I'll read both groups to make sure I don't miss anything", and "Which group do I post this medium-dumb question to?". This even bothers me wrt unix-wizards and unix. No more experts until its really needed. -- Lyle McElhaney ...(hao,nbires,brl-bmd,csu-cs)!denelcor!lmc (303) 337-7900 x261
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/16/83)
I agree with Adam on this one. Here's the test: do you read
net.astro.expert and not net.astro, or net.astro and not net.astro.expert?
As long as few or no people actually read one group and not the other,
there's no need for separate groups.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davewls@astrovax.UUCP (12/18/83)
> I agree with Adam on this one. Here's the test: do you read > net.astro.expert and not net.astro, or net.astro and not net.astro.expert? > > As long as few or no people actually read one group and not the other, > there's no need for separate groups. > > Dave Sherman -- Unfortunately I shot the time I had to spend on net.astro and had to turn my attention to other things. Thus my followup to alice!alb was more terse than it should have been. I think his point that most things were posted to both groups was ill founded anyway. I see one such article in our system now. I don't recall seeing more than two other double postings since the groups were founded. I'll agree that there have been what I consider inappropriate postings. My goals in the establishment of net.astro were 1) to get astronomers involved in the net 2) to increase the support of astronomers and astronomy sites for net as a whole and to encourage new astronomy sites to join. I know how tenous the initial support for the net really is, if it wasn't for my own action astrovax would not be on the net. Before I proposed net.astro I talked to the astronomers here and at the Institute for Advanced Study about the the idea. The responses I got from this people guided the path I took. I could see that the main excuse these people might give for not contributing was that the level of the discussion was too low and that it was wasting their time. There also had just been a discussion in net.misc of "Why does the moon look larger at the horizon". I was very afraid that this might be an example of the discussion on an net.astro. I also have not been particularly impressed with net.physics. Thus the idea of net.astro.expert to give the experts a place to speak. It has been my hope (and still is) that some of the interesting discussions I hear at lunches here and elsewhere I might begin to hear on the net. I proposed (and created) net.astro.expert to break the "chicken and egg" paradox. I knew the potential for its use is there but if it was not created at the beginning ITS NEED WOULD NOT ARISE BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NEVER COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK. If net.astro.expert had been created later the astronomers would have written off the whole idea of the net. I have not been overwhelmed by the response yet but I very strongly think it is too early to call it a failure. I have some ideas to stimulate things that I might carry out after I'm back from Christmas vacation. It also be after Christmas that I take further part in this discussion or answer mail. Astronomers, please get your collegues to post something (or better yet, post something yourselves). As Dr. John Bahcall says at the Tuesday lunch at the Institute for Advanced Studies, "Tell us something interesting..." Back to working on my Ap.J. paper... Still hoping, Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/19/83)
#R:alice:-239100:uokvax:9300004:000:710 uokvax!rigney Dec 16 15:58:00 1983 I also dislike the idea of creating net.bio without creating net.bio.expert for people who want to talk serious business without having to skip through interminable discussions. On the other hand, there are those of us who are interested in biology, but not in gel electrophoresis. I think these two groups are quite distinct. If serious bio workers have to wade through discussions they're not interested in, they'll just unsubscribe, which will drastically limit the usefulness of net.bio to the serious biologists. Perhaps someone should request that articles be posted to either net.astro or net.astro.expert, NEVER both. I imagine most subscribers read both if either. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/19/83)
#R:alice:-239100:uokvax:9300005:000:334 uokvax!andree Dec 16 21:06:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.news.group / rigney / 3:58 pm Dec 16, 1983 */ Perhaps someone should request that articles be posted to either net.astro or net.astro.expert, NEVER both. I imagine most subscribers read both if either. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney /* ---------- */ If most subscribers read both if either, why have two? <mike
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/19/83)
#R:alice:-239100:uokvax:9300006:000:898 uokvax!rigney Dec 17 13:08:00 1983 Having two separate groups is valuable if there is likely to be a group of experts who are ONLY interested in discussing real problems, talking with other experts on the net, etc. There is also a group who are interested in less hardcore discussions, but who might like to eavesdrop on the experts. The primary purpose of having separate groups is so that busy experts will want to and be able to use the net, which they are less likely to do if they have to spend considerable time filtering out noise. I feel that if something is thorny enough to go into expert, it has no place in net.astro, and if something is placed in net.astro, it is too simple to place in net.astro.expert. I agree that if everyone's just going to post to both groups, there's no reason to have both groups. But I'm hoping that matters will settle out, given a little time and incentive. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney