Subject:
|
Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 20:45:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1784 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Mark Lindsey" <markwars@fcmail.com> writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Paul Davidson writes:
> > > I don't think specialized newsgroups for Arctic and the myriad of other
> > > subthemes would get enough traffic to be worthwhile. Better to keep it in
> > > lugnet.town, I think.
> >
> > My thoughts agree, at least for the time being and probably through most if
> > not all of 2000. Someday, though (maybe 2001 or 2002?) it'll probably make
> > a lot of sense...who knows?
> >
> > I bet a group like .duplo.toolo or .duplo.dinosaurs would have a certain
> > "following." :-)
> >
> > --Todd
>
> Well I guess the LUGNET gods have spoken. No hard feelings here, but I do
> wish there could be more groups with a higher degree of specialization with
> regards to subthemes. I suggested it just for easy access to certain
> subthemed threads. I figured that if Primo, Belville, Scala, etc could
> warrant a group then certainly Arctic would. In the last month there has been
> more posts regarding Arctic than the other three I mentioned in their entire
> lifespan. What is the criteria? Why Scala, but not Arctic? Why Primo, but
> not Divers?
LEGO PRIMO, LEGO SCALA, and LEGO BELVILLE are all examples of whole Product
Programmes, on par with LEGO DUPLO, LEGO SYSTEM, LEGO MINDSTORMS, etc.,
whereas Arctic and Divers are merely short-lived play themes within the Town
System.
> Why any low traffic theme over any other with people requesting a
> specific posting forum? I realize the system is theme grouping, but if
> traffic justifies anything the Town subthemes must be considered. If nothing
> else why not start a new product line posting group? This would be a place
> where we could talk about all the new sets of a given year.
But that's one of the things .general is for.
> Then you could
> see what themes seem to warrant their own groups. Todd, this is not a slam on
> your system (which is very good) it is just an idea to be kicked around. Who
> knows maybe we can all come to a mutual decision that makes everyone happy.
> At the very least LUGNET's current system will be more understood by its users
> and therefore stronger.
Personally (just me speaking here, as a fan), I would like to see one group
for every last Play Theme (i.e., Arctic, Divers, Forestmen, etc.) within
every single System (i.e., Town, Castle, Space, etc.) within every single
product programme (i.e., LEGO SYSTEM, LEGO MINDSTORMS, LEGO DUPLO, etc),
because I'm confident that the positives would ultimately outweigh the
negatives, but at this point, very few people are actually indicating that
they agree that it would be a good idea at this point. Which makes me
conclude that it may not be a good idea at this point, nevertheless I do
still think it's inevitable at some point, when that time is right.
As far as creating a special group lugnet.town.arctic just for Arctic, or
lugnet.town.divers just for Divers, I think they would hardly last long
alone before fans of the other Town play themes (Extreme Team, Rescue, Time
Cruisers, Paradisa, etc.) began asking ever-increasingly for the other play
themes within Town also to be represented.
It's ever so much easier (certainly on me, and probably on most users as
well) to make a whole bunch of groups in parallel (in one big oomph) rather
than one at a time.
So even though I agree that traffic may not by itself warrant subgroups of
town, .space, .castle, etc., until 2001 or 2002 (thus not making them
"worthwhile"), it's really no measurable drain on the server for the groups
to exist unused.
IMHO, it's best to throw the switch "on" for all the play theme subgroups at
once -- all across the board -- whether or not they're actually needed at
that time -- and let traffic find its way into those groups on its own. For
some types of groups, traffic has a way of coming out of nowhere. For other
types of groups, even a "wanted yesterday" group sometimes fails to get
traffic.
Let me offer some concrete "hope," BTW, for you on the subject of additional
subgroups. As we restructure the sets database to fit into the website
restructuring begun last summer, the names for subgroups are starting to be
fleshed out. For example, check out:
http://www.lugnet.com/town/
http://www.lugnet.com/space/
The names there are certainly up for debate, BTW, if anyone sees problems.
We want to make sure that the URL and thus the newsgroup names are sensible
first before creating the newsgroups, because it's very easy to rename a
pure web category, but extremely difficult (if not impossible, for various
practical reasons) to rename or move a newsgroup once it's been created.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?
|
| (...) I would support this if the LUGNET web interface facilitates collapsing all of the sub-groups into larger groups. For example, if I click on space, I'd like the interface to show me all the messages for space.blacktron, space.mtron, etc. Then, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Todd, can we have an Arctic posting group?
|
| (...) Well I guess the LUGNET gods have spoken. No hard feelings here, but I do wish there could be more groups with a higher degree of specialization with regards to subthemes. I suggested it just for easy access to certain subthemed threads. I (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
44 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
|
|
|
|
