Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:53:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1254 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> What should we do about the mess that's caused by having .market.auction
> separate from .market.buy-sell-trade and more recently the mess that's
> caused by a lack of clarity in the T&C (Discussion Group Terms & Conditions)
> regarding flogs in themed groups?
> There was a thread a couple months ago about possibly reorganizing the
> .market area. I really was serious about that and feel we need to attack
> this again. My current thoughts are along the lines of blowing away the
> two groups .market.auction and .market.buy-sell-trade, and creating in
> their place the three groups .market.forsale, .market.wanted, and
> .market.swap.
> * 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?
My personal view/wish: I think the whole .bst/.auction area should be replaced
with theme-specific market groups. Little advertised fact: not everyone on
LUGNET is a generalist! I do not read .bst or .auction despite knowing that
I'll be missing stuff I might want, simply because I don't want to have to deal
with the noise. I realize that some people want to know if some obscure Town
or Duplo set is available. Fine for them, but it matters not to me.
Consider a scenario where sellers (and perhaps buyers) had a bunch of theme
market groups in which to advertise. This inhibits the careless from flogging
the real theme group. It means that people like me are more likely to read the
relevent groups, since we don't have to put up with noise. This eliminates the
question of "should low-traffic groups allow auction annoucements, since there
are so few Belleville auctions?" (people could just subscribe by e-mail, if it
would really be that low-traffic). This scheme gets want lists to the people
who are interested in filling them. Seems better for everyone than the current
setup.
The big danger is spammish crossposting. The solution is to prohibit
crossposting with these groups. Surely the software could automagically reject
posts to these "sell" groups that went to more than one group, yes? Lots for
sale or auction that were truly multiple theme or generic (e.g., straight
bricks) could go into a .sell.general group. Of course, people could try to
get around this by making separate posts; this would have to be dealt with as
noticed (summary loss of posting priviliges, perhaps?).
Granted, this doesn't really address the original question of sale v. auction
v. trade, but this is the sort of change to .market that would be relevent to
me.
TWS Garrison
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| TWS Garrison wrote in message ... (...) replaced (...) on (...) that (...) deal (...) Town (...) I like the idea of theme-specific market groups, though not to replace the general ones. Cross posting might not be so terrible: if something really is (...) (23 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
