Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!petrus!bellcore!vortex!lauren From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Net.software.projects group idea--Not a good idea Message-ID: <743@vortex.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 20:33:18 EDT Article-I.D.: vortex.743 Posted: Thu Aug 15 20:33:18 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 06:26:28 EDT References: <150@drutx.UUCP> Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 67 I disagree with this concept. It's IMPOSSIBLE to keep followups from being posted to such groups, and I frankly am beginning to doubt that the network can handle much more stuff being sent to every site when it really only needs to go to a relatively few individuals. A more reasonable scenario is to post ideas for projects in the groups that deal with those topics, then collect the names of interested parties and run a mailing list after that. If you want to do something with a C compiler (free or commercial) then the idea can go to the C newsgroup, and the author can collect the names of interested parties and proceed from that point with a specific mailing list. If you have an analog project, use the existing analog group. An advantage of using already existing groups is that they (by definition) already reach the people interested in those topics. This seems far superior to creating another group that will inevitably generate random queries and followups and the usual amount of newsgroup "noise." There are group projects going on now via mailing lists, without forcing the entire network to pass around all that traffic. If the volume of such proposed projects became extremely immense, then a separate newsgroup *might* make sense--but even then I would tend to say that posting such queries to the specific technical group in question would be superior. Network traffic is starting to go suddenly out of control again. 100K+ postings to net.tv.drwho. 100K postings (old bibliographies) to net.research. Endless, useless muck burying an occasional gem in net.bizarre. Intense use of followups of included text in both technical and non-technical groups. One local site found one of their dialups lines virtually CONTINUOUSLY in use trying to handle netnews feeds and is on the verge of turning off netnews completely. One of the major problems with creating new groups is that each group carries with it a certain amount of new "noise"--users who don't know what they are doing, inappropriate queries, voluminous back postings and included text, etc. A new group tends to be an excuse for all sorts of garbage--look again at net.bizarre, which started out well enough but has quickly become bogged down in every bit of computer trash that people have laying around. In a short time it will probably be just like net.flame--99% useless--and we *really* didn't need to double the amount of net-flame-like traffic in an environment where major sites are bogged down, other sites are cutting off some or all groups, and we're STILL faced with enormous growth in terms of numbers of submitting sites. So, to the extent that it is possible, let's TRY to use existing groups instead of creating new ones. An occasional project idea for, for example, a C processor can go to the C groups, just as other sorts of queries could go there and reach people interested in C. We don't create a general-purpose "query" group to which all queries, on whatever topics, should be posted; we instead post our queries to the specific group of interest, I feel strongly that the same principle applies here. It would apply even if the network had infinite bandwidth and cost nothing whatever to run, which it most certainly does not. --Lauren-- P.S. Sorry for the lateness of this reply, but I haven't received much netnews for three days due, you guessed it, to a clog at a major site. --LW--