rgc@raybed2.msd.ray.com (RICK CARLE) (02/12/91)
In article <2756@krafla.rhi.hi.is>, frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes: > Am I the only one who thinks this group might benefit from a split - maybe: > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d - for discussion about postings on c.b.i.p. > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted - for all those "I am looking for.." > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.announce - for announcing new programs and uploads This would be pointless, because: 1) The only "legitimate" postings are discussions about c.b.i.p. The other illegitamate postings would appear in .wanted and .announce and still be cross-posted to .d because that's the audience the posters want to reach. So traffic would just increase. 2) The volume of postings isn't really a problem, is it? I think it's only 20-30 articles per day. That seems ideal. 3) Most contributions in the way of "announcing new programs and uploads" come from Timo Salmi and Keith Peterson and seem to be pretty useful. I agree that these "I am looking for..." postings are often annoying, but there's no way to get rid of them. Except maybe if Davidson were to resurrect the script he once used to scold such people (via c.b.i.p.d) that they were in the wrong newsgroup. I thought that was effective and impersonal. Rick Carle
sheinfel@grad1.cis.upenn.edu (Aviad Sheinfeld) (02/12/91)
In article <2756@krafla.rhi.hi.is> frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes: > >Am I the only one who thinks this group might benefit from a split - maybe: > > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d - for discussion about postings on c.b.i.p. > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted - for all those "I am looking for.." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.announce - for announcing new programs and > uploads > [...] > >-frisk > There is a problem in that a wanted group would get very limited readership as there are very few people out there just waiting for the chance to rummage through their old floppy collection to mail someone a pointer or a program. Since the volume of this group is within reason (that is, it does not take more than 10 minutes a day to keep up), I think that there is no need to split up the group. How many of you would read through a list of "looking for" articles? Be honest!:-) Aviad -- Aviad Sheinfeld | Internet: sheinfel@grad1.cis.upenn.edu 4400 Spruce St. Apt E-5 |----------------------------------------- Philadelphia, PA 19104 | United States of America |
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (02/12/91)
In article <2089@raybed2.msd.ray.com> rgc@raybed2.msd.ray.com (RICK CARLE) writes: | I agree that these "I am looking for..." postings are often annoying, | but there's no way to get rid of them. Some of the most useful stuff has come from someone saying "I wish I had" and someone else saying "do you know about?" I still send notes to people who post really inappropriate things, but the charter in the inf postings clearly states "might be posted" to cbip. Better the discussion than posting something which people don't want. I think the good postings all fit nicely in one .d group, myself, and the people who ask "which mouse is available in hot pink" will be jerks wherever they are. Part of the purpose of this group is to have a little discussion of stuff *before* it's posted. Then I ask people to send me a copy. Due to bandwidth limitations the backlog is running 2-4 weeks. You *do* notice that we're consistently in the top ten volume groups, right? I don't think that I should raise the volume as a regular thing, it doesn't leave any headroom for reposts or stuff with time value, like the latest virus program or major fixes to tax programs. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
dfoster@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Derek R. Foster) (02/14/91)
In article <2756@krafla.rhi.hi.is> frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes: >Am I the only one who thinks this group might benefit from a split - maybe: > > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d - for discussion about postings on c.b.i.p. > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted - for all those "I am looking for.." > comp.binaries.ibm.pc.announce - for announcing new programs and > uploads >-frisk I second the motion - traffic on this group is high enough that I dread reading it because I have so much to filter out. I think the divisions you proposed are reasonable ones, and would be very helpful. Derek Riippa Foster
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (02/15/91)
In article <10814@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dfoster@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Derek R. Foster) writes: >In article <2756@krafla.rhi.hi.is> frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes: >>Am I the only one who thinks this group might benefit from a split - maybe: >> >> comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d - for discussion about postings on c.b.i.p. >> comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted - for all those "I am looking for.." >> comp.binaries.ibm.pc.announce - for announcing new programs and >> uploads >>-frisk > >I second the motion - traffic on this group is high enough that I dread >reading it because I have so much to filter out. I think the divisions >you proposed are reasonable ones, and would be very helpful. I'm not taking a direct stand for or against, but I very much doubt that the division would really work and be properly observed. My _guess_ is that these subjects would be too close each other in actual practice. In accordance with the old adage. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. I don't think it quite yet is. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37 School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun