Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!amdahl!howard
From: howard@amdahl.UUCP (Howard C. Simonson)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: net overload -- two proposals towards a solution
Message-ID: <1265@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 20:30:56 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1265
Posted: Mon Mar 11 20:30:56 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 12:55:23 EST
References: <2455@nsc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 60

I happen to be one of the "many" mailers which advocated the tree
structure which was so prevalent in the proposed renaming.  After
reading through the names listed, I came up with two ideas I would
like to throw to the world at large for comment.

1. The tree may be more useful if aliased at points.  Example:

                                net
                               / | \
                          books     scifi
                         /    \     /    \
                  mystery   scifi  movies books

The point being, I am not a big fan of books and therefore will shut off
the net.books path, however I love scifi and will keep that path open.
I realize that after a sufficient depth of narrow groups is created,
this could get extremely complex; but complex for the computer, not the
user, ( especially the naive user ).  And after all, what are computers
for folks?  This will turn the tree structure proposed into a full-blown
interconnected "network" of groups.

2. I find the generic flame and followup groups to be most annoying.
   Right now the followup group has become more "net.overload" than
   anything else.  I believe the concepts of flame and followup to be
   more or less sound.  If you take them away, the postings will still
   be there; and in a place you DON'T want them.  So, the conjuction of
   both the above concepts yields the attachment of flame and followup
   to each non-moderated newsgroup.  ( A radical idea, huh? )

3. This is less of an idea than an observation based on prior postings.
   I have heard people say that the only way for USENET to become USEFUL
   is if it splits up into sub-nets.  Hogwash.  The breadth of the net is
   what makes it so very rich with different views and opinions.  If the
   hierarchical/network organized net was to become a reality, the groups
   would be sufficiently narrow and elucidated that users would in fact
   become sub-nets.  Say I read the branches "unix", "micro", and "books".
   The other branches are turned off.  I have in a sense created a DOMAIN
   or sub-net, which I may wholly and/or partly share with other users.
   You may say that the same is true now of subscribed versus unsubscribed
   groups.  I don't agree because of the breadth of the current groups and
   general lack of orgnization of groups which keeps people sifting them
   for something worthwhile.  The domains are larger than they need be.

4. I'll throw this in for controversy's sake.  My original idea was to
   make all root nodes moderated groups, for discussions that have no
   current leaf node and might eventually form into one ( which would
   be created by the moderator ).  Care to comment.

Comments to mail, serious ideas to net.
I think we all need to see them, rather than one person's summary.

P.S. Sorry its so long ( probably should run it through diction:-)
-- 
Do not walk in front of me,
   I may step on your heel.                                  Howard C. Simonson
     Do not walk behind me,          ...{dragon,hplabs,ihnp4,nsc}!amdahl!howard
        I may stop abruptly.
          Just walk beside me, and be wary of sharp turns.  --  HamuS

[ Opinion? What opinion.  I think you have the wrong guy... ]