Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 03:34:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1296 times
|
| |
|
|
(My newsreader objected to my attempt to reply to Todd's original
message, so I'm replying to a followup)
> > * 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?
> > * Add new group lugnet.debate? Why or why not?
Lugnet.lego.{rant,rave,debate} get my vote. That makes it more clear
that they are distinct from the non-lego groups. I'm not sure they're
needed, but if they are created I think all 3 best fit in lugnet.lego.
> > * 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 that's a good idea. Is there a lot of swap traffic? Maybe
just forsale and wanted are needed.
> > * 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 think it's OK only for in-person buy/sell/trade deals. If they're
planning to ship it, it should be done in the market groups.
> > * 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?
I'd suggest only nuking the groups that don't get any traffic, and
then sit back and see if demand for their re-creation emerges.
I think that the 2-character region names vs. more-than-2-character
topic names is a good idea, both for .loc and .org.
> > * 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?
It depends on which is more important: the fact that they are
organizations, or the topic that they are about. If the
lugnet.org.train group is mostly talk about trains, and very little
about the organization, then it is good where it is (but it might be
appropriate to rename it to something other than .org in that case).
But if it is more about the organization, I'd move it. Same for all
the others.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward hermit@bayview.com http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."-Groucho Marx
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) I like the idea for all of these although I can see quite a bit of crossposting between .debate and the other 2. Maybe these groups should have restricted cross-posting? I.E. No cross posting at all or the only crossposting would be allowed if (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
