Subject:
|
Re: Triangle folks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 16:30:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1344 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, ffilz@mindspring.com (Frank Filz) writes:
> > > In terms of the "triangle" area, would it be possible for people to
> > > choose a single existing group to post to (say, Raleigh) and use that
> > > instead of a new group? How far are Raleigh and Winston-Salem from
> > > each other? Looks like about 2 hours on my NC atlas page.
> >
> > Winston Salem is 1.5 hrs from Raleigh, Greensboro is 1 hr. A "Triad" area
> > would cover Winston Salem, Greensboro, Burlington, and Asheboro.
> >
> > > What are the three "corners" of the NC "triangle" area?
> >
> > Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill (though Cary is now actually larger than
> > Chapel Hill).
> >
> > It would probably be reasonable to use Raleigh as the Triangle group.
> > Greensboro might be the best choice for a Triad group.
>
> You say -the- Triangle group but -a- Triad group. Maybe I'm reading into
> this, but I have to ask... I gather that there is a well-defined "The
> Triangle" -- I've heard of its existence before. How about "Triad" -- is
> there a well-defined "The Triad," or is the Triad an alternative to the
> Triangle?
>
> In other words, are there two existing and well-defined triplets of cities
> generally thought about? Or are there merely two choices of ways to pick
> three cities from a bunch, perhaps with overlap?
The Triangle refers to the area including Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill
(the traditional 3 cities), Cary, Apex, Hillsborough, Garner, and a
bunch of other towns.
The Triad refers to the area including Winston Salem, Greensboro,
Burlington, etc. the Triad is essentially immediately west of the
Triangle.
> > Can you set up group aliases (such that there would be a
> > lugnet.loc.us.nc.triangle which was the same as .ral and a .triad which was
> > the same as .gre?)
>
> No, there's no (easy) way to do that. The names of the loc.* groups also
> need to stay super-short for reasons of long-term expansion and practical
> reasons of typing. I can't imagine the confusion of wondering whether
> lugnet.loc.us.nc.tri refers to the Triangle or the Triad! :) :)
Oh well. For the Triangle, using .rtp or .rdu would work well (RTP is
the Research Triangle Park, located primarily in Durham, but stretching
into Raleigh and Cary, RDU is the airport), and leave .tri for the
Triad.
> BTW, there is a lugnet.loc.us.tn.tri -- for Johnson City/Kingsport/Bristol
> -- I'm told they're often thought of as a single city (called the "Tri-
> City Area"), just as Minneapolis and St. Paul are quite often thought of
> as a single city (called "The Twin Cities").
>
> > > Advantages of state-specific groups?
> > > - Wider focus than particular cities, but not so wide as the entire
> > > country
> > > - Allow state-level discussions (maybe taxes or other government
> > > issues)
> > > - Fits in better with new website reorganization
> >
> > - Allows a place for people who don't feel too close to any of the major
> > cities.
>
> That's a good one -- but do you mean people who can't decide between one
> city or another (because two are roughly equidistant) or do you mean
> people who are so far away out in the middle of nowhere that there isn't
> any logical group to post to? In the latter case, a group would probably
> be created for them. That's what happened with the Coachella Valley area
> of Southern California -- lugnet.loc.us.ca.cva. (The Coachella Valley
> area consists of Indio, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Coachella, Desert Hot
> Springs, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, La Quinta, and a few
> other miscellaneous cities in the valley.)
Either case is of interest (though the people who can't chose between 2
cities, might be best of using both groups). Creating groups as needed
is probably the best solution overall, but having statewide groups would
give these people a place to talk until it becomes obvious that a new
group is needed.
> > If I were setting up a newsgroup system like this from scratch, I would
> > start out with regions covering a decent area (generally 2 hrs across) with
> > huge cities represented by their own group. In sparsely populated areas, I
> > might start with just a single group for the state, and allow those
> > participants to suggest splitting if it was needed.
>
> I kind of did that, except with a 1-2 hour rule of thumb in some cases.
> In other cases (Montana, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii), I went with higher
> temporal tolerances.
>
> Reason that there are so many cities right out of the starting gate --
> rather than adding them later:
>
> 1. Very little need to add them later -- I think, in fact, that Coachella
> Valley is the only non-country loc group that's been added since the
> groups went live.
>
> 2. Overkill on groups is OK; unused groups are OK. Someday, they'll all
> get used. Or maybe not -- but that's OK.
The only minor problem is when they all get trickle used (which is what
is happening in the NC groups). Of course proper crossposting can
effectively combine the groups until such a time as traffic is
sufficient to require them to be separated.
> 3. Impossible to tell ahead of time what groups will be needed or useful.
> Would hate not to have a group in place ahead of time before it was
> needed.
That's one reason to include meta-area groups, but perhaps not a
sufficient reason.
> 4. Didn't want to be a bottleneck to the creation of new loc groups.
Very good point.
> 5. Didn't want to be stuck having to take the time to think about the
> creation of new loc groups every few days whenever the need arose.
> All the thought (for better or for worse) went into a single week-
> long marathon of atlas-studying in September.
>
> It is for reason #5 that if a lugnet.loc.us.nc group were created to serve
> all of NC, then groups for all states would be created at the same time as
> well. Best use of time that way. And again, it's no harm whatsoever if a
> group is created and not ever used.
Workload management is important...
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Triangle folks
|
| (...) Isn't .tri likely to be misread as the Triangle (even with .rtp present)? Does the Triad have any other names? (...) I'm starting really to lean toward this (creating statewide groups) for the reasons you've outlined in this thread and also (...) (26 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Triangle folks
|
| (...) You say -the- Triangle group but -a- Triad group. Maybe I'm reading into this, but I have to ask... I gather that there is a well-defined "The Triangle" -- I've heard of its existence before. How about "Triad" -- is there a well-defined "The (...) (26 years ago, 26-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
