Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:03:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> So, speak your opinions on these:
>
> * Add new group lugnet.rant or lugnet.lego.rant? Why or why not?
>
> * Add new group lugnet.rave or lugnet.lego.rave? Why or why not?
I would recommend 1 new group: lugnet.lego.rant/rave since I think they are
best given the same weight and mostly because I fear people saying "compare
the number of posts in rant v. rave and see how much Lego stinks now." We
know that people seem more inclined to kvetch than laud. So such comparisons
would be good debate fodder but meaningless. If you reject this then I think
both groups are needed to allow for both opinions, but I would not limit
them to lego.rant or lego.rave to make the aforementioned comparisons more
difficult.
> * Add new group lugnet.debate? Why or why not?
I don't feel real strongly on this, but think you have a good point in
support of the change: Lego debates are not off-topic. You might call it
lugnet.legodebate to reduce the accidental posting of off-topic debates there.
> * Delete lugnet.market.auction and lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade and replace
> these with lugnet.market.forsale, lugnet.market.wanted, and lugnet.market
> .swap? Why or why not?
I think this would be a very helpful change. Since, for any one piece at any
one time, one is either a buyer *or* a seller, not both, locating what you
want (a part or a buyer) would be easier. I think that getting rid of
.auction is also reasonable since we don't see too much what we used to on
RTL - long daily updates on auction status posting each item in the group. Ugh.
> * How much and what type of flogging would you like to see in .loc groups?
> None? Some? Anything goes? Only certain types? Why or why not?
Don't frequent the .loc groups so no opinion there. However, I'd like to
take this opportunity to ask for clarification of allowing flogging in the
theme groups. I hope it will be allowed since there are some pieces that are
of special interest to people that build in some themes but not much in
others. Sharks are a perfect example.
> * Move lugnet.trains.org to lugnet.org.train/ltc/etc., and move
> lugnet.castle.org to lugnet.org.castle, and move lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
> to lugnet.org.cad.ldraw (or something)? Why or why not?
Yes, flip the hierarchy. It would be easier to see if there was a club this way.
> I *especially* would like to hear your opinions if you haven't weighed in on
> any of these issues before.
"That's me, Herc! That's me!"
David Zorn
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) Ah, that's another advantage to their being top-level groups and not part of the .lego.* subhierarchy. I'm glad you pointed that out -- I hadn't seen that. I think it's important that they be separate groups because of their naturally separate (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| I'd like to kick off a discussion about the current state of the newsgroup structure here -- missing groups, unnecessary, groups, annoyingly or confusingly named groups, etc. The goal of this discussion is to come away with a list of practical (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.announce, lugnet.org, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.loc.us, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !!
|
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
