bukys (12/22/82)
********************************************************* * * * This is a poll. Please respond by MAIL ONLY. * * Results will be summarized in "net.news.group", * * with an announcement in "net.sf-lovers". * * * ********************************************************* Considering the volume of Star Wars speculation, it might be appropriate to create a newsgroup for it and its ilk. (I for one would like to see "net.sf-lovers" become less dominated by a single topic.) Here are some possibilities: net.games.trivia net.trivia net.trivia.sw "net.games.trivia" exists and seems appropriately named. However, the current readers of that group are oriented toward obscure facts and would probably be alienated by speculation. "net.trivia" is a better name for it, since trivia has nothing to do with games, but that's history for you. "net.trivia" also has the advantage of having room in the name for subgroups (if we really want one). net.sf-fans net.sf-flame net.sf-guess Face it: this phenomenon seems most common among speculative fiction readers. So it might not be so bad having the newsgroup name imply discussions of sf topics only. This could also subsume "net.startrek". net.fans Similar to the above, but could also absorb such fluff as "net.dr.who", "net.sctv", "net.wobegon", etc. net.speculation This is general enough to include Star Wars, Turing Test, Flight of the 12-ounce ABMs. It might be unpopular because of an connotation of triviality. On the other hand, this name might survive any particular ephemeral topic. On yet another hand, "net.misc" seemed like a fine place for the Turing Test discussion, destined as it was to die down relatively quickly. Would "net.speculation" just be a sillier or longer-winded "net.misc"? ********************************************************* * * * Reply now! Tell me if it's necessary, if it's * * long-term enough for a newsgroup, what it * * should be called, how many sites or people * * should say yes before it's created. Go wild! * * * * Send those cards and letters to: * * Liudvikas Bukys * * ...!seismo!rochester!bukys * * * *********************************************************
sjb (12/22/82)
The thing most people do NOT realize when suggesting things like this is that a LOT (if not most) of the SW stuff coming over net.sf-lovers now is from the ARPAnet, from the gatewayed SF-Lovers digest. I don't think we can separate the articles in the digest into separate groups. Also, I think the whole issue is too short lived for a new group; it will die down soon.
rwg (12/22/82)
Two points:
a) SF-Lovers is an ARPA BBoard which is piped into USENET. How do you
propose to split it? Should we have a USENET moderator to screen
what the ARPA moderator sends along? (or am I missing something here?)
b) Previous moderators of SF-Lovers were aware of the problem. The
solution, which I thought worked fine, was to keep special-interest
discussions outside the main digests, putting them in digests of their
own. These would have special headers like "The following digest
contains only Star Trek II submissions." The problem is that the
latest moderator is \not/ doing this!
Rich, {mcnc,floyd,decvax}!idis!mi-cec!rwg
P.S.,
My \real/ complaints with SF-Lovers are that they mung submissions for
compactness (they become hard to read with little real savings), and that
digests are sent out with a variety of topics. (I believe in the
one-topic-one-digest system.)
Sorry to post this; my only path to 'seismo' is thru 'harpo', which does
not seem to forward mail for me.