Subject:
|
Re: Mailing list gateways
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:40:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1733 times
|
| |
|
|
sparre@sys-323.risoe.dk (Jacob Sparre Andersen) writes:
> > Is there a reason that there has to be a lugnet.cad.users sub-group and that
> > lugnet.cad has to go away? In other words, why wouldn't
> >
> > lugnet.cad
> > lugnet.cad.dat
> > lugnet.cad.developers
> >
> > work just as well as (if not better than)
>
> It might. My main problem is that I think you aren't supposed to have
> groups placed in other groups, only in "categories".
I've heard that too. :) I don't think it's a Good-Thing/Bad-Thing thing.
Note that sub-groups of real groups are a way of life in the lugnet.loc.*
hierarchies -- and it's an important property of their usage.
But sub-groups of real groups also happen all the time on Usenet, don't they?
Although super-general things like comp.lang or rec.toys don't exist, more
specific (but still fairly general) newsgroups like comp.ai, comp.databases,
and comp.programming all exist as real newsgroups with sub-groups.
Are there taxonomical reasons for avoiding sub-groups of real groups, or is it
just one of those FUD[1] things that we all hear at one time or another and
pass along? Maybe it has to do with traffic... Something so general as a
comp.lang or a rec.toys would have a zillion messages a day, whereas something
like lugnet.cad is very low-traffic in comparison.
> [...]
>
> lugnet.cad.general follows the style from other Lugnet groups.
I forget where the name lugnet.admin.general came from, but I kinda wish that
it had been named simply lugnet.admin. lugnet.general is a special case
because it sounded silly to simply have a newsgroup called just plain lugnet.
(Those are the only two groups that have the .general suffix.)
I was never happy with the .general suffix because it implies "general-purpose"
or "general-interest" when the true nature of the groups are supposed to be
catch-alls or miscellaneous areas for discussions without a clear home
elsewhere.
In any ng hierarchy, when selecting a place to post, I think the thing that
makes the most sense is to post as deep into the tree as possible -- a.b.c.d if
possible, else a.b.c if possible, else a.b. Sometimes, of course, you want to
crosspost to a.b.c.d & a.b with followups set to a.b.c.d, or vice-versa.
> If it's
> too much work to move the articles from lugnet.cad to a new group, we
> can keep lugnet.cad it as it is now,
It's certainly possible, but it's not something that I'd look forward at all to
doing. :)
Back in early October, all of the newsgroups here went through a giant one-time
renaming to put them all under the lugnet.* naming hierarchy. This took about
eight or nine hours of work one late night, plus careful prep & planning before
the actual maneuvre.
Because of xref's and file system links, it turns out that it's actually easier
to rename all the ng's in the system and re-inject all of the articles than to
do it for just one group.
But in either case, there are left-over thing things like ng names appearing in
the middle of sentences and in URL's -- no fun at all to mess with.
At the time of the great renaming in October, BTW, there were only about 1,000
articles in the system, compared to about 16,000 now.
So I'd be _perfectly_ happy with lugnet.cad keeping its current name -- both in
terms of the work involved and in terms of keeping a clean and simple ng
taxonomy. :)
Maybe the .developers suffix is enough to scare regular users away all by
itself -- without needing a .users sibling-group for juxtapositioning purposes.
> and just add lugnet.cad.developers.
Say, perhaps instead of .developers, maybe .development? (The first one makes
the distinction based on the type/occupation/utility of the person, whereas the
second one makes the distinction based on subject matter.)
Because ng names are traditionally descriptive of the subject matter they
embody, I think lugnet.cad.developers would imply that the group is for
discussing LEGO CAD developers, rather than for discussing LEGO CAD
development. I think lugnet.cad.development would accurately imply a group to
talk about LEGO CAD development issues/details. On the other hand, it may also
be confusing in that someone might think it's a place to talk about developing
cool new models with LEGO CAD software. On the other hand,
lugnet.cad.developers may also be confusing in that someone might think they're
a LEGO CAD developer if they develop models with LEGO CAD software.
<sigh :->
On that note, are there other "intimidating" words with the same level of "stay
out unless you're a real wizard/geek" as .developers has? Does .internals or
sw-development or .software-dev or anything like that still work and also keep
newbies and "regular users" out?
--Todd
[1] FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| (...) [...] (...) No. Whenever the depth of a hierachy on Usenet is extended, the original group is terminated, and a .misc group is created to handle what's not put in other groups. The problem is that some servers don't notice it, when newsgroups (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| Todd Lehman (lehman@javanet.com) wrote: [...] (...) It might. My main problem is that I think you aren't supposed to have groups placed in other groups, only in "categories". (...) Yes. (...) lugnet.cad.general follows the style from other Lugnet (...) (26 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
