| |
[x-posted to lugnet.admin.general]
In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten wrote:
> Could you add an error message to posts made to the .dat heirarchy which do
> not contain .dat content? Maybe then fill lugnet.cad.dev into the blank.
> Just looking through cad.dat.parts, it looks like 30-40% of posts are not
> .dat files.
I wonder if it's time to think about a redesign of the .dat ng's. There's a
significant amount of off-topic posting, and at least one group is going unused.
To me, that indicates the newsgroup definitions are a bit askew.
The following groups could be affected by a redesign:
lugnet.cad.dat
lugnet.cad.dat.ideas
lugnet.cad.dat.models
lugnet.cad.dat.models.sets
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives
lugnet.cad.dat.scenes
Some ideas:
idea1: deactivate lugnet.cad.dat.scenes. It sounded like a good idea, but it
has received only one original posting.
idea2: have discussion groups for the various file types (models, parts, ideas,
etc.). Then each discussion group could have a .dat sub-group, which would be
the place to post DAT content. Something like:
lugnet.cad.files.ideas
lugnet.cad.files.ideas.dat
lugnet.cad.files.models
lugnet.cad.files.models.dat
lugnet.cad.files.models.sets
lugnet.cad.files.models.sets.dat
lugnet.cad.files.parts
lugnet.cad.files.parts.dat
lugnet.cad.files.parts.primitives
lugnet.cad.files.parts.primitives.dat
lugnet.cad.files.scenes
lugnet.cad.files.scenes.dat
This approach would also allow other-format files to be shared, either in
*.parts or some groups which would be siblings to *.parts.dat, such as
*.parts.povray or *.parts.lgeo.
A disadvantage with this approach is that not all .dat groups really seem to
need a discussion area. Another disadvantage is that there are lot of groups.
Also, it would de-thread any followup to original DAT postings, because the
follow-up would have to be posted to the discussion group, not the .dat group.
idea3: reactivate lugnet.cad.dat as a discussion group for all the other .dat.*
groups. This would make the naming a bit askew, because the lugnet.cad.dat
group would be for discussion, yet have DAT in its name. It has the advantage
of it being a simple change (presumably).
Like idea2, this has the de-threading disadvantage.
idea4: have a separate group for any file-related discussion. Something like
lugnet.cad.dat.discuss
This also carries the de-threading disadvantage, except in a more severe form,
since the discussions must move even further away from the source DAT posting.
idea5: scrap the idea of DAT-only newsgroups. Allow DATs to be posted anywhere
in the lugnet.cad hierarchy.
idea5a: add a header field to indicate a message has DAT-content.
idea5b: make the proposed .dat subgroups (from idea2) be some sort of ghost
groups, which only show the messages from their parent which hold DAT-content.
Sorry I don't have any coherent solution to suggestion. If I could see a good
solution, I'd definitely propose it.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Sorry !
|
| Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:Fptv7F.3s2@lugnet.com... (...) Todd, Could you add an error message to posts made to the .dat heirarchy which do not contain .dat content? Maybe then fill lugnet.cad.dev into the blank. Just (...) (25 years ago, 14-Feb-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
