Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!splut!jay From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Old Group Deletion Procedures Keywords: delete obsolete newsgroups Message-ID: <2908@splut.conmicro.com> Date: 30 Sep 89 16:17:13 GMT References: <3137@ur-cc.UUCP> <1989Sep26.212755.8458@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <4492@ncar.ucar.edu> Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Lines: 80 In article <4492@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <1989Sep26.212755.8458@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> david@jane.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Robinson) writes: >>Why bother deleting inactive groups? They are only taking up one inode >>on your disk and one line in your active file. >(This is a form letter. This question has been asked and answered so many > times that it has probably set a USENET record by now, and ought > to be included in the news.announce.newusers postings) (This is a form reply. This position, while not universal, has been taken so many times that it has probably set a USENET record by now, and ought to be included in the news.announce.newusers postings) > The problem with creating extraneous newsgroups is not a network resource >issue, it is a HUMAN resource issue. The more newsgroups there are, the >harder it is to find the right group to post in. Secondly, naming issues >are VERY important. It seems clear that we can handle a lot more newsgroups >if we ensure that they are placed properly within the hierarchy and have >well-chosen names. If you look at some of the recent debates over >sci.skeptic and soc.rights.human (and even sci.econ vs sci.economics), you can >see that this is NOT a trivial issue! The problem with not creating newsgroups as subject areas spring up is not a network resource issue (read the BUGS section of rn(1) for one cogent statement on the issue), but a human resource issue. The fewer newsgroups there are, the harder it is to find the right group to post in. The current discussion about shortwave listening is a good case in point: it is nowhere near obvious that SWLing has historically been discussed in rec.ham-radio: witness the recurrent posting about "Is this an appropriate subject for rec.ham-radio?" This is true more generally as well. Every time someone posts "I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but...", it points out a failure. Further, witness the success of news.newusers.questions: the level of newuser-type questions in other groups has dropped precipitously, simply by providing an obvious place for them...despite the clandestine attempts of some sysadmins to torpedo the group. Naming issues are important, true. They can be divided into two issues: 1) The name chosen doesn't obviously relate to the subject of the group. This one has validity in the current discussion, because it relates directly to the ease of finding a particular group in the hierarchy. 2) The group is in the wrong hierarchy. This one isn't relevant to the current discussion, since the hierarchy that a group lives in matters little in finding the group if it's there at all. Instead, this one involves the distribution that a group will receive. THe best example of this is comp.society.women; it was placed in the comp. hierarchy, over the strenuous objections of a large number of net.admins, primarily to ensure that it would receive comp. distribution instead of soc. (which is somewhat more restricted). (Flames about this one will be cheerfully ignored, as comp.society.women's record speaks clearly for itself: it's much more sociological than technical.) > If you don't believe that too many newsgroups is a problem, you can either >look at the number of articles ALREADY posted to the wrong group because >the poster couldn't find the right group, or you can consider the extreme case >where every article is it's own newsgroup. Since this is exactly like having >no newsgroups at all, it does prove that a line must be drawn SOMEWHERE, >or at least that there COULD be such a thing as too many newsgroups. If you don't believe that too few newsgroups is a problem, you can either look at the number of articles cross-posted to half the known universe and starting with, "I'm not sure this is the place for this, but there's not a rec.foo.bar newsgroup," or you can consider the extreme case where there is just one newsgroup. Since this is exactly like having every article be its own newsgroup, it does prove that a line must be drawn SOMEWHERE, or at least that there could be such a thing as too few newsgroups. All that the extreme case proves is that there's a sinewave curve of utility versus the ratio of newsgroups to articles, and the most utility occurs somewhere in the middle. Greg and I differ on the point of the peak of the curve: I think utility improves when there's an obvious newsgroup for every subject that might be posted, while Greg thinks that utility improves when there's simply a place for each discussion, even if it's not obvious. This is a question for library science. Is there a librarian in the house? :-) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- America works less when you say..."Union Yes!"