Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mordor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!jdb
From: jdb@mordor.UUCP (John Bruner)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: long newsgroup names
Message-ID: <4060@mordor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 11:18:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: mordor.4060
Posted: Thu Oct 24 11:18:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 03:35:44 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL
Lines: 33

I know I'm going to be flamed for this, but I'd like to express
a dissenting point of view regarding the new newsgroup names
that have started showing up.  I admire the people who put so
much time into USENET, and I generally agree with their positions,
but on this one I'm in opposition.

I don't like long newsgroup names.

In particular, I don't like names like

	mod.computers.macintosh

I don't believe that names have to be "cute", but I ask for
some restraint in the choice of new names.  Long names are hard
to type, and there are still common contexts in which typing a
newsgroup name is required.  Two which come to mind immediately
are the "N" command in readnews/vnews and the "g" command in "rn"
(yes, I know about the search command in "rn").

Is "mod.computers.macintosh" really more specific than
"mod.computers.mac" (or even "mod.comp.mac")?  I think not.  Is
is harder to type?  Certainly.  (I'm a touch typist.  I wonder how
much the average hunt-and-peck user will enjoy the additional length.)

Certainly I agree that ARPANET digest names such as "laser-lovers"
and "sun-spots" invite confusion.  I'm not arguing in favor of
retaining those names.  I'm not arguing that all newsgroup names be
limited to 14 characters (for ancient reasons).  I'd just like
to see some restraint in the length of names.
-- 
  John Bruner (S-1 Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
  MILNET: jdb@mordor [jdb@s1-c.ARPA]	(415) 422-0758
  UUCP: ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!jdb 	...!seismo!mordor!jdb