harper@csc.fi ( Rob 'BioBit' Harper ) (08/07/90)
In article <1520@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, steffen@hawk.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) writes: > Questions for those interested in continuing this discussion: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 1) Do you think that there is too much noise on the bionet bulletin boards, > or too little content? For news groups to succeed there has to be three factors working. 1) ACTIVITY: If there is not activity then it is often a question of out of sight out of mind. The engine has to be continuously ticking over. You can have can have the idling speed at whatever you want, but it is not good if the engine konks out. 2) INVERACTIVITY: It is not all that healthy if a newsgroup is dominated by a singular personality. The newsgroups that I enjoy are ones where people are talking to each other... and interchange of ideas is important. Sometimes it requires that someone gives a sermon to clarify "points of network doctrine", but long messages in a preaching style rarely get any feedback from the "congregation" 3) CONTENT: Content is what sells a newsgroup. If the content is good then the punters will read it. The problem often is that when you write for a general audience in a popular style the "experts" deride the content for its lack of depth, and when you write for the experts, the punter says "what was that that flew over my head... was it a bird or a plane?" > 2) Do you consider this discussion of value? Why or why not? Only in that it gives me a chance to give my three point sermon once again:-) > 3) Is this the appropriate newsgroup in which to hold this discussion? If > not, which of the bionet newsgroups would be more appropriate? Definately not... it is entirely inappropriate... but I would rather see a sermon that hear one anyday. Rob "headache... it must be Monday" Harper.