rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (08/18/83)
I should clarify some of my positions on the proliferation of subgroups. First, though I oppose having subgroups for every subsubtopic of every area of (sub-)interest, I am not proposing that we submit everything to net.general!! There is a valid middle ground. We need individual distinctions for topics like tv (television viewers) and video (those interested in video technology, et al), religion (systems of worship) and philosophy (systems of non-religious belief), etc. We need broad categories like music, movies, unix-*, micro, etc. to distinguish and clarify to potential readers what we are talking about. But we don't need a subgroup for every piddling subtopic that comes along, even if it has a large (though in the minority) following. Second, I prefer the concept of keywords to the concept of newsgroups. Newsgroups tend to polarize and box us in, to pigeonhole our discussion. Instead of a list of 'groups' that one wants/doesn't want to see, how about a list of keywords. Some people might have in their keyword list: "music !rock". Thus an article keyworded as "music" would get through this defensive barrier, but a "music rock" article would not, and these people would be spared the agony of reading about rock singers biting the heads off of flying rodents, et al. (That's the only thing rock fans talk about, right? That and drugs. :-) ) A master keyword list (much like the master newsgroup list) would provide news users with a list of possible keywords to accept/reject in their .newsrc file. General usage would actually define acceptable keywords. (If I had '!shoes' in my .newsrc, and no one used that keyword, I wouldn't be rejecting many articles.) All the controversy over double posting is reduced to nothing if an article on how to hook a video recorder to my television while normally watching something else would have keywords 'tv video' in it. Anyone who doesn't care about video technology but watches a lot of television might have 'tv !video' as part of his/her .newsrc file, and thus miss this wondrous article. I digress... This was simply a restating of my previously espoused and described position on subgroups. It's a difficult area where sometimes it's justified and more often it's not. 'micro' and 'music' are probably good examples where it's not, while 'sport' and 'sport.baseball' (to me) are good examples where it is. Of course 'sport baseball !rollerball' would do the trick... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
fred@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/20/83)
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP . . . we don't need a subgroup for every piddling subtopic that comes along, even if it has a large (though in the minority) following. Why, may I ask, not? As long as a potential subgroup has the readership to support it, I see no reason it shouldn't exist just because its topic is subsumed by some other newsgroup. I prefer having more newsgroups rather than fewer, so that both news posters and readers can be more selective in specifying topics. I prefer the concept of keywords to the concept of newsgroups. . . . Instead of a list of 'groups' that one wants/doesn't want to see, how about a list of keywords. . . . General usage would actually define acceptable keywords. So do I. I'd much prefer the K-news system which was described (I think in net.news) a few months ago. But we don't have it (yet), and until we do we're going to have to do the best we can with what we have, namely subgroups. (begin flame) I fail to see what you're annoyed about. If there is a new newsgroup, you have the freedom to either subscribe or not. How does this impinge on your freedom? It doesn't force anyone to read more articles than they would have otherwise, and gives everyone the option of reading less (Which I feel is desirable considering the volume of news.). (end flame) Fred Blonder harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!fred
alb@alice.UUCP (08/21/83)
I wish people would stop taking the attitude that newsgroups don't produce any more overhead. They do! The more newsgroups you have, the slower the news programs work, because each has to do a linear search of the active file to do its job (granted, the process has been greatly sped up in recent versions.) Also, each newsgroup has its own directory, which means i-node and file space used up (this seems like a small thing, but on machines with small /usr/spool's, it is certainly not to be overlooked.) And there *IS* a limit to the number of groups we can have; this is an indirect limit, as it is linked to the maximum size of the .newsrc file (once you have as many lines in .newsrc as you are allowed, you cannot make any new groups.) We (using alice's active file) now have 238 newsgroups, and the number is growing steadily (I remember a couple years ago when we had only 50 or so groups.) The software currently allows for 512 (the .newsrc limit). In a year or two (considering that the rate of growth is also increasing steadily), we will reach this limit. Then what? If we don't start taking steps NOW to control newsgroup proliferation (what a nastier sound than growth that carries!), we will soon not have any more room left. Then, when a group with a real and true purpose comes along, it won't be able to fit it, because there will be too many net.micro.atari.battlezone and net.tv.mash.hawkeye type groups around.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (08/22/83)
First, my thanks to Adam Buchsbaum for his explanation of the problems with
the increasing number of newsgroups, many of which fall into the
category of subgroups to other newsgroups. Although the reasons Adam
described were technical in nature (as opposed to the aesthetic (??)
reasons which I have used in my arguments), they reveal one
potential problem with the proliferation of subgroups.
Secondly, I'd just like, once more, to clarify what the h I am trying to say.
My reasons for opposing the subgroup proposals recently put forth
have to do with the "isolationism" (<--a better word than snobbishness)
that such subgroups would cause. To me, one of the beauties of
the net is that it brings together a wide variety of people with an
even wider variety of viewpoints and ideas. The formation of sub-
groups inhibits the cross-fertilization of ideas that might otherwise
be present.
SCENARIO: A reader of net.micro.apple (and apple owner) accidentally
reads an article in net.micro.cbm. (QUICK, GET THE
PARAMEDICS!!!!) The article says: "I need a Frazmuco VPX1000
to connect to my VIC20 ('YEECH!' says the apple-owning reader)
in order to process my Hoozawatson input." The reader
mumbles: "What a stupid way to get Hoozawatson input...
Hey, wait, the apple comes with a Crelmo IDU [internal drelb
unit], which is compatible with the Frazmuco VPX1000. Maybe
if I tell the author that Crelmo IDU's are available as a
replacement part from Apple-authorized dealers, then maybe the
author can tell me how to decode Hoozawatson input with one..."
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr