| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) writes:
>
> > > lugnet.clubs.pnltc
> > > lugnet.clubs.gmltc
> > > lugnet.clubs.novaltc
> > > lugnet.clubs.baylug
> > > lugnet.clubs.nelug
> >
> > I *still* think that's a good idea, at least until there are *dozens* of
> > clubs around.
>
> That's exactly how I see it, too, except for one thing: it's that "at least
> until" part that makes me really nervous.
>
> What happens when there -are- dozens of clubs around? This could be as soon
> as 6 months from now. Do we delete or move groups around? Rearrange the
> hierachy? That would certainly work, but I'd hate to choose a path leading
> that way, because of the disruption and chaos.
What about a heirarchy that echos (to a certain extent) the primary hierarchy?
i.e.:
lugnet.clubs.trains.gmltc
lugnet.clubs.trains.novaltc
lugnet.clubs.general.baylug
lugnet.clubs.general.nelug
lugnet.clubs.cad.ldraw
A hierarchy like this is less likely to turn into a one-page monstrosity, and
each of this could be linked to from the rest of the hierarchy wherever they
are relevant. Which means that someone in the GMLTC area who finds lugnet and
goes to his .loc group to find people would see the club as a link, and someone
looking for train clubs would look (intuitively) for "clubs" or "trains" and
would see them either way - either as a direct subgroup (clubs) or as a link
(trains)
> > And the best way (in my mind) for lugnet to encourage more
> > clubs, is to concentrate the existing clubs in one hierarchy, to show
> > everyone just how many clubs there are.
> >
> > Or maybe it would be better to have a www.lugnet.com/clubs/ homepage,
> > without a newsgroup behind it. The clubs homepage would provide links to
> > the club-homepages, where-ever they are in the lugnet hierarchy.
> >
> > There could be a lugnet.clubs group underlying the homepage, for general
> > discussion about clubs. It could serve as a launchpad for new clubs, just
> > getting organized.
>
> That sounds like a good, workable possibility -- a single .clubs group with
> pointers everywhere. Just like .trains.org is, but for everything (not just
> trains).
I think having a .clubs hierarchy makes more sense that a .clubs group that is
just a set of links. And its more consistent.
> > > lugnet.loc.nl.org.debouwsteen (or lugnet.loc.nl.org.bouwsteen)
> > > lugnet.trains.org.pnltc
> > > lugnet.trains.org.gmltc
> > > lugnet.trains.org.novaltc
> > > lugnet.loc.us.ca.org.baylug
> > > lugnet.loc.us.org.nelug
> >
> > Hmm. Seems kind of overly-long. And a bit inconsistent. Would it make
> > more sense for all club-groups to be based in the .loc hierarchy?
>
> What about "virtual" clubs that span the globe -- purely topical or
> demographic groups, rather than geographical groups? Where would they
> fit in?
Easy:
lugnet.clubs.net.foofoo
or maybe
lugnet.clubs.virtual.foofoo
> > I suppose the train-clubs have more affinity to the .trains hierarchy
> > than they do to their geographic location, but still...
>
> Where would you put the train clubs in the loc hierarchy?
lugnet.clubs.trains.*
<snipped questions about exactly where organizations fit geographically>
Most of these questions would be easy to deal with if .clubs was a
sub-hierarchy, that can be accessed directly, or linked to from relevant areas.
For example:
lugnet.clubs.general.baylug
which could have links on several .loc pages, depending on where it was
relevant.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: De Bouwsteen club
|
| (...) That's exactly how I see it, too, except for one thing: it's that "at least until" part that makes me really nervous. What happens when there -are- dozens of clubs around? This could be as soon as 6 months from now. Do we delete or move groups (...) (25 years ago, 12-Aug-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.nl, lugnet.admin.general)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
