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)