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... ]