To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.nntpOpen lugnet.admin.nntp in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / NNTP / 316
315  |  317
Subject: 
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.nntp
Date: 
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:28:28 GMT
Viewed: 
3829 times
  
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Ross Crawford writes:
> [...]
> Don't use these much anyway, but maybe .sell, .buy & .swap?

Ahhh--BINGO!  Those are *very* *nice* and *short* name components!!!


> Currently we (.loc.au) can't post in the state level groups (.loc.au.vic),
> only in specific city groups (.loc.au.vic.mel) which are pretty much 1 per
> state ATM anyway. And not many people currently post there anyway. I think
> it'd be good to keep the state groups, certainly don't need city level. Even
> if we get our LUGs in the .org hierarchy (below), I think we still need
> state groups in .loc for non-organisation local state stuff.

So you're saying?--deleting the super-lower-level metro groups in .loc.au
would be (possibly) a step forward but deleting the state-level groups
loc.au.xxx would be a step backward?


> Can this be done like a link? Put all the groups in .org.train, but (for
> instance) have a link in .train to .org.train.

A website link, yes, very easily.  For example, the .org area currently has
a crosslink to the .trains.org area:

   http://news.lugnet.com/org/

and the .trains.org area currently has a crosslink to the .org area:

   http://news.lugnet.com/trains/org/


> I think this'd work for general (non-themed) LUGs as well - put them all in
> .org.general (or similar), but have links to the local ones in (eg) .org.au.
> Does this make sense?

Aren't all the general (non-themed) LUGs true LUGs in the normal sense of
the word -- i.e., regional user groups?

> On thinking about this, .org.general would probably become fairly large.
> Maybe they should be in their local .org group (eg .org.au) with links in
> .org.general?
> 
> OK maybe we don't need .org.general at all - just throwing some ideas
> around.

Thanks, lots more ideas is good.  I wanna keep the names as short as
possible -- so having an .org.general is probably getting too long for
comfort.  That's why it's got two-letter ISO country abbreviations now.

> Also, I still think it'd be good to have lugnet.technic.classic 8?)

You mean Expert Builder or non-modern Technic?

--Todd



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
 
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa41e91.189907...net.com... (...) (.loc.au.vic), (...) per (...) think (...) Even (...) yep, basically I think that would work well _with .loc.au_ other countries may vary. (...) in (...) (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
 
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa34df1.136496...net.com... (...) Hmmm. I tend to think it's generally a good idea, but are people gonna use it? I think you're still gonna get general Lego ranting & raving in .general, but (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)

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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR