Subject:
|
.clubs / .org hierarchies
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Apr 1999 19:53:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3909 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> > Yes, okay. A point you made in an earlier post is that lugnet.org and
> > lugnet.com are potentially confusing to the starting user. Perhaps if you
> > used .club. instead of .org. ? It breaks the domain-mapping paradigm, but
> > it's a little more descriptive.
>
> At one time in fact there was a clubs.* hierarchy -- I'd mistaken what
> someone at PNLTC had said; I thought they said they wanted a focused PNLTC
> discussion group, but they didn't, so we deleted the group (and the
> hierarchy).
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/fullthread.cgi?lugnet.announce:9
>
> The nice thing about "org" is that "organization" is such a wonderfully
> generic term. Companies are organizations, clubs are organizations, user
> groups are organizations, schools are organizations, etc.
>
> There was also here at one time a lugnet.lug.* hierarchy, but that went away
> too when it was realized that these would belong closer to their natural
> spots in the lugnet.loc.* hierarchy. And although baylug.org is a LUG,
> pnltc.org and gmltc.org and ldraw.org are not LUGs. But they're all
> organizations.
John Gerlach of .trains just made a suggestion of using .trains.clubs --
what I was thinking of .trains.org to be. But .clubs is really nice and
intuitive compared to .org, and the notion of a "train club" (in those exact
words) is, I think, extremely prevalent, so that even though a high-level
.club or .clubs hierarchy might not be the most fitting name, a .clubs sub-
hierarchy of .trains might make a *lot* of sense.
--Todd
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
