cfv@packet.UUCP (06/21/83)
Having just received the latest list of active newsgroups, I went through
it and compared it to reality on my system. My system is relatively new
(on the net about a month) and has been running with automatic creation of
new groups, so I think that what my system shows is close to what is really
happening on the network as far as traffic is concerned (assuming my system
gets most of the messages).
The following groups show up in my list that aren't on the official list:
net.bicycle
net.lisp
net.trivia
net.groups.control
net.gdead
As of now, with the exception of net.bicycle which seems to be well on the
way to official status, I have zapped these. net.lisp and net.trivia have
counterparts elsewhere, and everything except net.gdead could have shown up
accidently by someone mis-remembering the topic name. net.gdead? who knows
where that came from....
What was more interesting was the comparison of the list of official topics
and which topics were being used. Here is a list of all topics on the official
list that have had no activity since my system came up:
fa.arpa-bboard
fa.bitgraph
fa.digest-p
fa.energy
fa.info-terms
fa.railroad
fa.sf-lovers
fa.telecom
fa.teletext
net.adm.site
net.ai
net.analog
net.announce
net.applic
net.bugs
net.bugs.2bsd
net.chess
net.college
net.columbia
net.decus
net.games.emp
net.games.pacman
net.games.pbm
net.lang.apl
net.micro.432
net.rec
net.rec.birds
net.rec.bridge
net.rec.caves
net.rec.scuba
net.rec.ski
net.research
net.rumor
net.sport
net.sport.football
net.sport.hockey
net.std
net.ucds
net.usoft.s
net.vvs
net.wobegon
With the recent grumblings about the large number of topics on the net,
perhaps it is time to rethink the existence of some of the lesser used
topics, and see whether or not they can still be justified (for example,
do we really need net.columbia AND net.space?). We might also
want to re-classify some of them into more appropriate locations (could
net.startrek be moved to net.tv.startrek and net.chess be moved to
net.games.chess, for example?). As the number of people using the system
grows and the number of topics expand, there will be a growing need for
something like a sunset clause so that topics that have fallen out of use
(like net.wobegon[???]) or aren't really used very much can be recycled....
--
>From the dungeons of the Warlock:
Chuck Von Rospach
ucbvax!amd70!packet!cfv
(chuqui@mit-mc) <- obsolete!alb@rabbit.UUCP (06/22/83)
net.bicycle is still 'unsanctioned' -- to address one key note, it was decided some time ago (several some times ago, as a matter of fact) that people wanted both net.columbia and net.space. net.columbia most certainly is active. If you aren't getting anything, your connections are rusty.
citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (06/22/83)
It should be remembered that certain groups are seasonal. For example, net.sport.hockey is mainly active in the winter and early spring, especially when the Stanley Cup races are heating up. I am sure that there are other newsgroups that exhibit similar behavior. It pays to keep these groups; if we eliminated net.sport.hockey, then come Stanley Cup time net.sport would be flooded (well, maybe not flooded) with hockey articles, and non- hockey fans would demand a net.sport.hockey so they wouldn't have to read these messages. Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin)
furuta@uw-beaver.UUCP (06/23/83)
Please note: It is a *very* bad idea to rename groups to make the naming scheme tidier. When you rename groups, it causes a long, long, long time for people to realize that the name has changed and a long, long, long, long time before you can actually get the name change to be effective. Note that one of the groups found in the recent "not sanctioned" survey was "net.trivia" which is now "net.games.trivia." How long ago was that change made? Six months, nine months? I seem to recall old discussion over whether or not net.gdead was an "official" group. I think the decision at that time was that it wasn't and that Grateful Dead discussion went to net.music. But again, it takes a long time to get changes to take effect. I have seen traffic on some of the groups listed in the "unused" column not too long ago. net.rec.birds is one. --Rick ...decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!furuta (uucp) ...ucbvax!lbl-csam!uw-beaver!furuta ...ihnp4!uw-beaver!furuta or Furuta@Washington (ARPAnet)
cfv@packet.UUCP (06/28/83)
*sigh* When I sent out my original note I was not attempting to have ALL of
those wonderful topics that my machine says isn't being used should go away.
What I was trying to suggest was that some of the topics probably deserved
being re-evaluated to see whether there was still a need for them. I
realize that net.sport.hockey is seasonal, but what about net.wobegon?
Just because a topic has been created doesn't mean it has to stay forever,
and one good way to keep the number of topics from going through the roof
is to occasionally look around and see what isn't being used. If it isn't
being used but is still justifiable, then fine, lets keep it, but if it
isn't being used because it is no longer relevant then there are a lot
of potential topics that would be happy to replace it.
It seems to me that somehow the topic creation and destruction mechanisms
need to be rigorized. They are nicely automated, but there is no administration
to dictate how that is going to be used. I don't have the answer (suprise!)
but I think it is something that needs to be discussed.
--
>From the dungeons of the Warlock:
Chuck Von Rospach
ucbvax!amd70!packet!cfv
(chuqui@mit-mc) <- obsolete!