Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site mcvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!piet From: piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Creating new groups (net.internat, net.os, et.al.) Message-ID: <857@mcvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 06:02:11 EDT Article-I.D.: mcvax.857 Posted: Thu Oct 24 06:02:11 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 04:20:51 EDT References: <1648@gatech.CSNET> Reply-To: piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) Distribution: net Organization: CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 26 >The argument is often raised "But what harm does it do to create (keep) >another newsgroup, especially if the volume is small?" The answer is: >"Plenty." The volume of postings is so large now that at least 4 >backbone sites are no longer carrying or forwarding all the newsgroups, >and more are considering cutbacks. >...Arguments about >merit of a newsgroup really aren't appropriate here -- if the net is to >be judged based on the volume (=popularity?) of newsgroups, then Usenet >is not primarily for technical or theoretical discussions. Rather, the >net is a forum for cranks and flamers with some technical content >thrown in now and again. Wrong. This again is reasoning from a narrow (and wrong) viewpoint, looking at the net as an American network only. But today it's *really* a worldwide network. And by far the most of the volume in the non-technical newsgroups does *not* reach the part of the net outside the US; given your first argument some of them even don't reach all of the US anymore! So it really is time to take arguments into account now about the merit of a new newsgroup, when it concerns a technical newsgroup. Very high numbers of yes-votes for such newsgroups can't always be expected, like on non-technical groups. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@mcvax.UUCP)