Subject:
|
Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:20:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1705 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, lar@voyager.net (Larry Pieniazek) writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> > Would you prefer abbreviations?
>
> No. Use fully spelled out names, they are easier to remember. We don't
> all use "I" for variable names any more, either.
Also, from the AR standpoint, totally spelled-out names are virtually
guaranteed to be forward-compatible with all future names. For example,
imagine if it was 1989 and MT meant Model Team, and along came M:Tron. :)
> But my real point didn't come across very clearly. I think
> lugnet.trains, with a charter that allows both system, and duplo, and
> train club discussion, is a better way than a duplo group and a club
> group and a system group. There is a limit to useful fragmentation.
I agree with that. That's why I see this as a tricky situation.
> Hack the server to alias stuff if you want to get it "right" from a
> categorization perspective, but don't subdivide too far.
Well, here's how I'm looking at it -- forget about the special case of
trains for a moment and bear with me on some additional background:
Believe it or not, I was once considering creating a separate newsgroup for
each and every LEGO set released! That consideration didn't last too long,
of course, because it's just kinda gross and because there's the problem of
set numbers not being unique and all that. Also, there's the problem
of subscribing to lots of these via NNTP (as opposed to the web). Anyway,
what's important to understand is the reasoning behind the idea...
Fair Use provisions in the U.S. Copyright Act favor you more (in terms of a
given would-be-infringement not really being an infringement) if you provide
commentary/criticism along with things than if you simply copy something
without offering any criticism. So, even though TLG has clearly stated that
limited extracts of their copyrighted works (for example, images of sets)
can be displayed on unofficial fan-created websites, I'd like to "hedge my
bets" and tailor the system a little more toward commentary/criticism of
sets than it currently is (currently, the set DB is simply a data display).
Notwithstanding, I do believe that what's currently there now already falls
under Fair Use even if TLG were to object or change their policy -- but
that's beside the point. Offering integrated commentary/criticism
represents an *increase* in legal protection should TLG ever decide to
change their mind about their copyright policy, and at the same time, it
represents an increase in value to the user. So moving toward that is a
win-win for everyone.
A wonderful to way integrate commentary/criticism with the sets-DB is to
create specialized newsgroups for sets or for themes, and make it easy to
add comments right from the DB web pages. For example, you might be
visiting the 2150 Train Station (a.k.a. "Retrostation") page and notice that
nothing is said about it being a sister-set of 4554 Metrostation. You
*should* be able to click a button right from that page and add your
thoughts about how the two sets relate and differ, or whatever commentary/
criticism you might have about the set.
The NNTP newsgroup paradigm is great for this because (a) threading rocks --
people can follow-up your commentary with their own commentary or
(dis)agreements, (b) it's already "there" in the sense that it's a
relatively small leap technologically, and (c) all of the comments posted
can be read by people who subscribe to newsgroups using traditional methods.
It is also because of (c) that it would not be a great idea to create a
separate newsgroup for each LEGO set. But the same effect (separate groups
for separate sets) can be had by embedding something in a news-article
header which allows for multiple different LEGO sets to be commented on in a
single group. People viewing the groups via news or e-mail would see all of
the comments together in a single glob of articles (like any other group)
and people viewing a particular set in the DB would only see the articles
related to the set they're viewing.
So the question is: How far to scale *back* from *all* the sets, rather
than how far to scale ahead from just one or two themes.
One possibility is to scale back one step -- from individual sets to
particular themes (e.g., Blacktron II, Forestmen, Extreme Team, Paradisa,
Ninja, jungle Adventurers, etc.).
Another possibility is to scale back two steps -- to systems only (Space,
Castle, Pirates, Adventurers, FreeStyle, etc.). This might be the right
level of granularity.
An extreme possibility is to scale back three steps -- to product programmes
only (PRIMO, DUPLO, SCALA, SYSTEM, TECHNIC, ZNAP, MINDSTORMS, etc.). This
is probably scaled back too far, since it lumps, for example, Castle and
Town and Space and Trains and FreeStyle all together.
In deciding which level of granularity to choose, there are zillions of
considerations to take into account. Most of these are practical and
technological concerns with regard to the way people use newsgroups, but
another important consideration is "community" within topic areas.
As much as there are Blacktron I fans out there who may be separate from
(that is, little or no overlap between) Ice Planet fans, it may be that they
actually have more in common than not in common.
Fortunately, the new website reorganization supports arbitrarily deep levels
of sub-communities, which means that even if there aren't separate
*newsgroups* for Blacktron I and Ice Planet, there can be separate *groups*
(in the sub-community sense) for these. These will have a normal URL like
any other on the server, and the ability to list people belonging to that
group; they just won't necessarily have an attached newsgroup.
--
Anyway, that's a little bit of the rationale behind all of this. We're not
worrying -too- much yet about how it all affects any particular sub-group
(i.e., Trains or Star Wars), since we're confident that it things will fall
into place one way or another (maybe with a bit of work, maybe for free),
and that the overall long-term gains for everyone in this facelift/reorg
will more than make up for any short-term grievances.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: lugnet.duplo/toolo
|
| (...) No. Use fully spelled out names, they are easier to remember. We don't all use "I" for variable names any more, either. But my real point didn't come across very clearly. I think lugnet.trains, with a charter that allows both system, and (...) (25 years ago, 28-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
14 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
|
|
|
|
