Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: time to remove net.bizarre
Message-ID: <3275@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 16:37:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.3275
Posted: Tue Sep 17 16:37:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 05:32:38 EDT
References: <1969@amdahl.UUCP> <688@cyb-eng.UUCP> <224@meccts.UUCP>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Uncle Chuqui's Lemming Farm
Lines: 35

In article <224@meccts.UUCP> ahby@meccts.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron) writes:
>but it seems to me that the rules say  a group will be removed
>when its traffic becomes so low that it is no longer necessary.  Is
>net.bizzares traffic low?  I don't think so, but I haven't checked
>lately.
>
>For the people who are being heavy-handed about this group, the real
>issue is:  would you like a group you cared about to be attacked in
>this way?  I certainly wouldn't!

Being one who's been 'heavy-handed' about this, I'll be the first to admit
that we are attempting to set a new precedent with net.bizarre. "Attack"
may be too strong a word, but what is really happening is that we are
trying to find out if content (or lack of it) is as good a reason as volume
(or lack of it) for deleting a group. Precedents need to be thought out
VERY carefully (which is why I'm against net.peace, but that is another
story) but if the net is to grow/improve they become neccessary. The time
comes when doing it the way it was always done simply isn't good enough
anymore, and net.bizarre has become the testbed to see if it is time to
start considering WHAT is being said instead of just how much. I happen to
think it is -- 5 well thought out articles are MUCH more important to me
than 100 idiotic ones.  If the net ends up agreeing with us, maybe we can
come up with a better set of procedures for killing the 'bad' newsgroups. 
Right now, 'bad' is defined in terms of things like net.wobegon, which
isn't bad, it's really harmless (but don't tell them I said that). With the
way volume is growing, bad probably needs to be defined in terms of some
signal to noise ratio -- if the usefulness of the group drops below some
value because of bad postings, it becomes detrimental. This is a strong
directional shift for the net, which is why we need to think it over
carefully. I also think it is a GOOD directional shift, which is why I'm
supporting it.
-- 
Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui

Take time to stop and count the ewoks...