Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:20:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1417 times
|
| |
|
|
OK, I'm posting before reading most of the other replies...
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> 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.
Thanks for getting us involved, like Alison said.
<skip to the end>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> 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?
lugnet.rant and lugnet.rave, yes. A good place to voice opinions that would
potentially annoy other people, and without getting negative replies
("Everyone here is too dang positive / negative").
> * Add new group lugnet.debate? Why or why not?
Yeah, it sounds like a plan to me. If .off-topic is meant to be entirely
non-lego-related, then there is a need for "on-topic" .debate group. This
reminds me of the lugnet.fun group that was added (or actually, opened for
posting) after the "do we need an on-topic.fun group" discussion. So yes, I
think we do need a lugnet.debate group, for lego related debates. Otherwise,
.o-t.debate is viewed as the place for *every* kind of debate, just as
o-t.fun earlier seemed as the place for *every* kind of fun.
> * 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?
Tough. Getting rid of .auction and .b-s-t as they are today sounds like a
constructive idea; .forsale and .wanted might be appropriate to. But .swap
could cause problems (again, Alison mentioned this, potential abuse and XP'ing).
> * 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?
Only certain types, I'd say. If certain .loc groups want to hold *all* their
market stuff there, and no one who reads the group objects to that, then by
all means - why not. The .au debate comes to mind. But unless specified, I
think that the only type of "flogging" (I wouldn't call it that) I'd like to
see in .loc groups is the "found this and that in xxx store downtown, anyone
want me to get them some?" that you mentioned, etc.
> We also need to make sure that casual everyday person-to-person or
> person-to-group talk of a commercial nature is still OK in the .loc groups,
> as appropriate, but make sure that explicit flogs are not-OK in other
> groups, especially themed groups.
Agreed. Flogs shouldn't be welcome in theme groups, even if you're selling
or looking for themed items.
Also, flogs should definitely be better defined. The line should be as clear
as possible (even though it can never be crystal clear, I suppose). However,
how to define it is a difficult problem in itself...
> * Axe regional subgroups of lugnet.loc.xx and field requests for new
> subgroups on a country-by-country basis -- let them grow organically?
> Why or why not?
Yeah. Like you said, Todd, if they're not being used, then what's the point?
However, keep in mind that not only .loc.us is big, but also .loc.ca -
Canada's huge, people need at least the county (or is it state?) subgroups.
> * 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?
Hmm. Tough one. I for one like having .castle and .org.cw under the same
place on the web - I can see them both in one viewing. But your rationale
makes sense - groups are going to keep popping up, and it might be a good
idea to make the change sooner rather than later.
What happens to posts in old groups, in that case? Do you move them to the
new location, or leave them in an obsolete group?
<snip>
> I'm rather dismayed as to how few AFOLs have come online outside of the
> U.S. since 1998. It's been a lot, to be sure, but I really expected 10
> times as many. I really expected there to be a few hundred in the UK by
> now, for example. That's why the huge up-front planning of all the .loc
> groups down to the major metropolitan regions. Anyway, those guesses were
> totally wrong, and people seem to want to group up in bigger groups anyway.
Ummm, well, one explanation for why other countries have less AFOLs might be
the price of LEGO. Europe prices are pretty good, but outside of Europe
prices go up - way up. Consequently, it's that much harder to get lego
consistently, and to maintain a collection without blowing all your money.
That is probably a factor.
-Shiri
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
