Subject:
|
Re: Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:49:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1376 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:20:42 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
> 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.
I'm not exactly an NNTP expert, but a header-field sounds like a very cool
idea, because it would allow posts about specific sets to appear in any
newsgroup. If Mr. Gonzalez posts one of his way-cool alternate models in
lugnet.cad.dat, he could opt to tag it with the set-specifier tag, and it
be linked into that set's db page. Likewise for any reviews, auctions,
etc.
> 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.
If you offer the ability to post comments directly from the db pages, those
comments could be 'dumped' into a monolithic .comments ng. Or they could
go to any number of product-classified ng's. But having a single
lugnet.db.comments ng makes some sense, topic-wise. (My fear is that too
many of the comments would have very low signal-to-noise ratios, but that's
a separate issue. And if comments were limited to people who have gone
through the lugnet posting signup, it's not much of an issue at all.)
Drat! I didn't get through a dozen posts before I had to open my big,
virtual mouth.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Product line granularities and parallel newsgroups
|
| (...) 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. :) (...) I agree with that. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
