Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!calma!adams
From: adams@calma.UUCP (Robert Adams)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: news groups come and go...
Message-ID: <30@calma.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 20:04:04 EST
Article-I.D.: calma.30
Posted: Fri Oct 25 20:04:04 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Oct-85 06:32:41 EST
Reply-To: adams@calma.UUCP (Robert Adams)
Organization: GE/Calma Co., R&D Systems Engineering, Milpitas, CA
Lines: 24

The discussion about creating and destroying groups (net.bizarre, ...)
seems to be pushing for fewer groups rather than more.  I find
that it is the "off the main track" groups that have the best
content because, I feel, that those who are interested in the
subject are the ones who will have reasonable comments.  The
low volume groups are the best groups.

Is there any particular net overhead to have more groups rather
than less?  The "overload" problem is in total character volume
and not number of groups.  Wouldn't many special interest groups
better serve the users of the net by making data on a particular
subject findable rather than buried in with other discussions?

In net.mail, they are discussing keyword mail selection.  Isn't
the news group name really just a "keyword" classification of
the article?

More groups would make things easier to find and make for more
meaningful discussions on individual topics.  I vote for the
creation of many more groups rather than trying to restrict
the creation and low volume use of them.

	adams@calma.UUCP		-- Robert Adams
	...!ucbvax!calma!adams