Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-lcc!pyramid!octopus!pete
From: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Usenet volume (and a suggestion...)
Summary: Is it time to consider regionalization yet?
Keywords: volume news
Message-ID: <461@octopus.UUCP>
Date: 7 Dec 88 08:28:51 GMT
References: <1995@van-bc.UUCP> <1275@vsi1.UUCP> <2707@epimass.EPI.COM>
Reply-To: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
Organization: Octopus Enterprises, Cupertino CA
Lines: 68

Our stats: Running vanilla 2.14 news. 30MB spool partition. Two daily
expires, one at 2 days, one at 2 weeks for intensively-interesting stuff
to local news junkies. Occasional full-partition trouble requiring hand
file-deletes tells me we'll be going to 40-50MB Real Soon Now.

A thought: many moons ago, for a somewhat different reason, I suggested
that we need to consider more regionalization of the net. I wonder if
it might behoove us to figure out some such solution sooner (i.e. the
next few months) rather than later (i.e. after the net has crushed itself
under its own weight). To wit (a strawman proposal, to give a flavor of
what might be possible):

	- Improved separation of newsgroup namespace from distribution
		namespace, so that various regions could all have their
		own rec.taxes or comp.music.rock-n-roll discussions, without
		having lots of regional newsgroup names.

	- The news software (active file? sys file? new file?) would have
		a specific default distribution area for each group.
		It would be best to have a mapping to make installation
		easy (e.g. the file would have distributions like 'city',
		'province', 'region', 'continent', 'world' rather than
		'ba','ca','uswest','na','world'). The installer would
		define the locally applicable mapping.

	- To begin with, all groups could default as they do today.

	- Once in place, appropriate groups (high volume, lots of "experts"
		available everywhere, and/or little value to worldwide
		discussion) could be limited to regional discussion.

	- Presumably, a moderator would be available to promote articles
		to a wider audience whenever necessary. 

Well, hopefully that's enough to shoot some shotgun shells at. Seems to
me that something like this is a practical way to limit traffic without
losing the true value of the net. Sure, it's nice to see what people all
over the world think about my latest question, but a *few* responses is
plenty. With the net as big as it is, every question in many groups gets
*TOO MUCH* feedback. We need to limit the audience! My criteria for
audience-limiting algorithms includes:

	1) Discussion threads must make sense and be contiguous to all
		participants. In particular, this means that randomly
		dropping articles would be a Bad Thing.

	2) Low volume valuable discussions need and deserve widespread
		distribution. Other categories may not need widespread
		distribution. Conclusion: flexibility must be possible.

	3) I'm interested in lots of different things. Don't cut me off
		completely from all discussion in any newsgroup that I
		want to recieve and/or post to.

	4) Moderation, in moderation, is a Good Thing. There isn't enough
		Quality Volunteer Time to moderate the whole net. And I
		don't have the stomach to turn Usenet into a set of
		Compu$erve Forums (with paid moderators, etc).

	5) I *liked* the Good Old Days. All we need is a way to give 
		*everybody* the Good Old Days.

Enough already.
-- 
  OOO   __| ___      Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
 OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
  OOOOO \___/        UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete
___| \_____          Phone: 408/996-7746