Subject:
|
Re: Mailing list gateways
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:14:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2385 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message
> I meant, sometimes non-obvious needs exist even when no obvious needs
exist.
OK, I see what you mean.
> And sometimes when neither obvious nor non-obvious needs can be identified,
> something can still be worth doing.
> In other words, sometimes the need (or desire) for something becomes • obvious
> (or even manifests itself later out of the blue) long after the fact, when
> people have used something long enough to realize that the new way is • easier
> for them than the old way. How many people needed a microwave oven in • 1950?
> Or wanted to buy books and CD's on the Internet in 1990?
I don't dispute that this happens, but if this you subscribe to this
argument then you should agree that it can just as easily go the other way;
un-foreseen disadvantages. "Harmless and effective, DDT will eliminate
Malaria as a worldwide epidemic" 1960's
> > But, I (LINC) do feel that there is merit in the
> > status quo, and I realize you (Todd) do not.
> I hope I haven't given that impression!
Ya that was a bit presumptive on my part.
> > I still feel that the gateway _helped_ the Lugnet.robotics group -- a • group
> > that had a substantially smaller readership and knowledge base. Keep • this
> > in mind as your read the next paragraph.
> >
> > The influx of both these attributes was positive, but at the same time • the
> > group's ability to grow on its own, attract its own readership was sold.
> > What I mean is, Lugnet.robotics is tied to the list... a greater part is • the
> > list. Subsequently, Lugnet.robotics can not grow separate and attract • its
> > own readership separate from the mail list, and I think this is a real
> > disadvantage. Granted, maybe the Lugnet.robotics might still be in it's
> > infancy if it had not been gatewayed, but it would be itself... small,
> > focussed and on-topic (exactly where the whole Lugnet domain was a few
> > months ago, and now?). I foresee a disgruntled population of list users
> > wanting to get away from the list's frustrating posting practices
> > (billion/Y2K come to mind). Lugnet normally would have been able to • offer a
> > haven for these people (just like it did for the RTL user), but it can't • now
> > that it is gatewayed. If there was to be a split in the future (no idea • if
> > that was planned, and I am not suggesting it) Lugnet.robotics would have
> > lost the "building time" equal to the length of the gateway duration. • The
> > growth and development potential for the Lugnet.robotics ng was exchanged
> > for the immediate benefits I mentioned above; the Benefits I enjoy! But • had
> > it remained separate, I believe it would be coming into it's own... • right...
> > about... now!
> That's deep... Must...digest...slowly...
I just wanted to clarify for your digestion that in the above, "(exactly
where the whole Lugnet domain was a few months ago, and now?)" means only
that Lugnet was in its infancy, and now is not. I was not asking where
Lugnet was now... OK I was, but it was rhetorical.
> > I now read Lugnet.robotics like it is RTL... probably too quickly (miss
> > stuff that I might like to read), but I don't have time to filter the • fodder
> > otherwise. I think that there were marginal reader that just stopped.
>
> Do you see the problem there being too much off-topic fluff or too many
> dissimilar sub-topics? I see some of both...mostly the latter...do you see
> other things that make it unpleasant to wade through?
Ahhh, hard to say. If there were *.sensors, *.LegOS, *.walkers, ect
divisions within robotics, I would subscribe to all of them. Sure I don't
understand LegOS all that well, but someone is going to post a "How to work
with LegOS on a Win95 Machine" just like has been done with Linus, and I
don't want to miss it. And, I learn by NG osmosis! However, I don't think I
would read the competition groups that much if they were created. I would
subscribe, but reading would be dependant on mood and time (do I really want
to read this in case there is some tid-bit that will apply to my interests?)
The division of robotics might bring back the marginal readers (on Lugnet)
who what to see announcements of bots, but not necessarily ASCII schematics.
My biggest complaint is the fluff, and the improper use of threads. Threads
that change topics repeatedly but don't start a new thread (kinda similar to
this one... oops :) and posts that pop up as new threads when they should
have been left in the original thread. Some of this is education. I would
think that the proper procedure for doing a post with the subject heading
"topic A (was topic B)" is to make it a new thread... not leave it in the
same thread that it originated. Otherwise whats the point. I don't know...
like a lot of others.
> It's never too late to create sub-groups, BTW -- and the interest in doing • such
> is growing slowly but surely.
This should be thought about carefully. I don't need much splitting... but
others may want more or less. How do you decide? You have to look at
percentages, and decide if the people that read this one will likely read
this one too... don't split it (e.g.. *.arena.combat and *.arena.task -- for
the majority of cases, if they are interested in one, chances are they will
be interested in the other. What's a majority, and how do you find it? Who
the hell knows!
I think what really makes splitting attractive to me is, if you say on the
Robotics mg/ng "All right everybody, NO area posts here! Arena posts should
be made at Lugnet.Robotics.Arena, where there is a excellent dedicated group
for just this topic". ml only users that are participating in arena are
presumably going to make that quantum leap and now read Lugnet. Once they
sign in (which is for some inconceivable (to me) reason is soooooooo
hindering) they have made the big step. Once here their posts will hit the
right groups.
There is still the problem that I mentioned before -- that of ng/ml
separation... is it going to happen and if so how. If it is going to
happen, then perhaps the sooner the better. But to be honest I would
immediately join the ml if I couldn't get it here. And the ml is not moving
voluntarily over to the ng. I won't ditch the ml until it gets really bad
(hmmm where has this happened before :). This touches on the big problem I
wrote about in the last post (you are digesting it). As it stands now there
is nowhere to move to.
> What I meant was, you seemed to be constructing a case that L-CAD shouldn't • be
> mirrored or moved because you didn't/don't see a clear advantage. If • that's
> true (if this is the case you were making), then I simply wanted to suggest
> that perhaps a more convincing case against mirroring/moving would argue
> disadvantages over advantages, rather than arguments based on the absence • of
> perceived advantages or the absense of obvious needs.
I give on this... it is becoming moot. Agreed?
> In general, when collecting opinions, it's sometimes frustratingly • difficult to
> get responses other than, "Well, I kinda lean toward this, but the other • thing
> is OK with me too; I'll go along with whatever the group decides." • Especially
> when opinions are collected all at once rather than focused one-on-one.
I believe this is an artifact of the medium (newsgroup). If you have an
opinion and state it, every one sees it and you can feel obligated to defend
it if asked. If you lean to one side on some issue, but not enough to make
you an advocate, by being wishy-washing you don't have to put the effort
into defending your position... you have none. E.g.. I think less people
would vote in a municipal election if after marking your ballot, you had to
hold it up to a crowd who could then debate your decision to support the
person you did. One-on-one debate is less effort and might be less
daunting, so you are willing to state more admittedly your true feelings,
even if they are contrary to the interviewer's. This talks to the statement
below.
> I think people often put dampers on their enthusiam or skepticism when • making
> public statements. I think if you took confidential surveys, the responses
> would tend to go into more depth. I think it's also difficult to get • people to
> answer how they truly feel about something independent of everyone else -- • to
> separate how they feel from how they think the group feels. Nobody wants • to be
> a party-pooper, right?
I tried to be one, but damn it! The server started to choke. ;)
LINC
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) Yup -- works both ways! Trick is to identify as much good & bad up front as reasonably possible. (...) My favorite thing about separate ng's is the mood & time thing -- plow through certain groups quickly, then go back and read other ones as (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| Todd Lehman wrote (...) :) (...) and (...) You forgot about turning on your computer and moving the mouse in that list of steps. IMO this is a Straw Man argument. If you have used LDraw or LEdit, you have read the FAQ and it is in the FAQ. It is (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
80 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
|
|
|
|
