Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:22:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1419 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?
Sure. They can't hurt, and adding them gives you the coverage you need to
toast the mostly obsolete dear-lego group. I'd suggest having them as just
.rant and .rave instead of under the .lego.* hierarchy, to avoid
implications that they're something officially LEGO.
> * Add new group lugnet.debate? Why or why not?
Probably a good thing. I imagine there will be a "burn-in" period while
people stumble around with mis-posted things trying to figure out what's
what under the new hierarchy, but once things sort themselves out, I think
it will be a good thing.
> * 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?
Hmm... as others have mentioned, .swap is not entirely clear how it's
different from .wanted, and there would likely be a lot of x-posted. How
about just lugnet.market.foroffer and lugnet.market.wanted?
The only thing that personally bothers me about this is that I'll
more-or-less stop reading the market groups. I stopped reading .auction a
while ago because the ratio of noise (things I wasn't interested in, mostly
e-bay, but also lots of other auctions) to content was too high. If .bst
and .auction are effectively merged, then I highly suspect that the
noise-to-signal ratio will be too high for me to put my time into it. :/
But personal preferences aside, it sounds like a better, more clear
hierarchy, and so is probably a good thing.
> * 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?
I would say that this can be defered to the local groups, since I agree that
.loc hierarchies should be determined by said .locs. My personal preference
is no thanks, but I'm just one (Canadian) voice among many, and my biases
shouldn't affect how people in Botswana do their business. :) (Are there
any Botswanian AFOLs?)
> * 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?
Seems like a good idea, although please don't axe the provincial groups
under .loc.ca! Canada is a big place, and the provincial groups are, IMHO,
useful.
> * 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?
That makes the compartmentalized dork in me happy.
Possibly into:
.org.regional
.org.trains
.org.trains.regional
.org.castle
.org.cad
.org.futuresubgroups.*
> I *especially* would like to hear your opinions if you haven't weighed in on
> any of these issues before.
Oh. Oops. ;)
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| James Brown wrote in message ... (...) replace (...) lugnet.market (...) I have to "me too" on this post. James has stated me feelings on this quite well. I generally don't even go to auctions, but then I miss the personal auctions that people run (...) (24 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
