Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 04:59:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
Wow. Well thanx for starting this discussion up Todd. It focuses
into one thread what a lot of people have been talking about on
and off for some time.
I've read all the posts that are available and found about 15 that
had a point in it that I found particularly interesting. To make
this post somewhat useful (and coherent?) I'll put my two cents
in first, and then tack all the miscellaneous stuff on at the end.
> * 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?
I will most certainly avoid any of these groups as I personally
don't find them useful/productive/entertaining/whatever.
However I would suggest creating .debate and .debate.non-LEGO.
Ditto for .fun and a .fun.non-LEGO. Use this pattern in other
suitable areas as well. This sorts things into the major category,
but then makes a clear distinction between things LEGO and not LEGO.
While everything on LUGNET should have LEGO as a topic, calling
stuff "off-topic" isn't entirely clear. For example, is an off-topic
debate one that isn't about LEGO, or simply one that has drifted
away from the original debate topic?
This also covers the inevitable cases where a LEGO debate turns
into a non-LEGO debate. The thread just goes into a sub-group
but is still in the same heirarchy. For those of us on the web
interface, this makes continuing to follow the thread much easier
should we choose to.
But of course, I won't be following debates <wink> ;]
> * 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've seen a lot of great suggestions posted. Based on those my
suggestion is for:
.market.for-offer
.market.wanted
- If people want to swap, they can say so in their post.
- Auctions and other "funny" sales go into .for-offer along with the
"straight" sales. The energy drain to continually filter these
two overlapping items from each other is just too much, IMHO.
- Restrict (by charter) posting any announcement to one time only,
i.e., no repeat posts or updates. Allow a re-post (by charter)
after, say, 2 weeks have passed. This will prevent auction update
spam.
- .for-offer posting cannot be third party, e.g., sale reports.
Those would go in .market.shopping.
- Yes, these groups will get a lot of traffic. With LUGNET growth
it is unavoidable. People will just have to deal with the traffic,
just as they need to when looking at classified ads in the paper.
In addition, .market.theory could be renamed to .market.discuss
to allow a place for feedback issues, calls for help, whatever
else may ensue. Maybe that just gets truncated to .market?
I can't think of any suggestions right now for .market.shopping.
It seems to work.
> * 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'm still thinking about this one. I have (at least once) "flogged"
something in a .loc, but set follow-up to .market. I'm not even
sure I like it having gone into .loc to begin with. I need to think
about this some more...
> * 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?
I would put any and all organization stuff under .org. Something like:
.org.themes
.org.regional (or .org.loc)
.org.other (???)
Keeps all orgs in the same place, and organizes them by their defining
characteristics.
> I *especially* would like to hear your opinions if you haven't weighed in on
> any of these issues before.
Well, I know I've griped about this one before, and since it didn't get
mentioned in your original post:
.dear-lego
.lego.direct
Oh gawd please let's do something about these two. You've mentioned
that the former was meant to be thread-starter only, with FUTs set
accordingly, or something like that. This is the first I've heard
of this intention. I definitely don't get that from its charter.
I treated it as a discussion forum for those "open letters".
Then there's the latter group. I've said on many occasions that
traffic in there grossly violates the group's charter. But since
you've started a new thread specifically about this issue, I'll
discuss it there instead :]
Now to some key comments from other people...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> I find it very annoying when people mix linguistics and
> geography. There is no one-to-one mapping between languages
> and geographical areas!
and
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Eric Joslin writes:
> Nowhere in the Lugnet TOS (that I'm aware of)
> does it say that anything outside the lugnet.loc.* hierarchy must
> be posted in English.
Exactly. I have always believed that posts in any language are
welcome in any group. I should be able to post a message in
.market in French. Of course I have to realize that would
likely limit my replies, but maybe that is what I want. For
example, I should be able to post to .Adventurers in Gaelic
asking if there are other people who would like to discuss
Adventurers in that language..., and then continue to discuss
there in that language if there are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Dwayne Towell writes:
> I hate to get dozens of auction and sale UPDATES. I would recommend leaving
> .auctions as a friendly place to post auction updates--I would allow initial
> posts
> about auctions in .buy-sell-trade (or the newer .forsale-wanted-swap). I
> would
> also make recommendations/guidelines/restrictions against repeated sale
> posts
> in .buy-sell-trade.
I offer Dwayne's comments as support for my recommendations above.
> I would like to see the TOS relaxed in some discussion groups with respect
> to
> sales. For example, belville and train parts are rarely available for sale
> or trade
> so fans of those parts might not watch .buy-sale-trade (or whatever). I
> think
> each group should make its own rules about whether flogs should be allowed
> and under what circumstances.
This one I do disagree with, though. I feel market should stay in
market. If someone wants something then they are going to have to
bite the bullet and go look for it in the appropriate area. I do not
want to see any theme group that I read get filled up with market
posts. My gawd .space would be a nightmare! :] That would make
the .market groups almost redundant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Frank Filz writes:
> I think incidental mentions of market deals should be allowed in the
> other groups, but it would be nice to clarify this. Things that I think
> should definitely be allowed is for someone other than the seller to
> post a reference to any online deal (like an eBay post) in order to
> raise questions about the item being sold. I think it would be ok for
> the seller to do so if they are responding to a direct querry.
Certainly this makes sense.
> I think
> that a certain amount of discussion of the kits being produced by AFOLs
> is also reasonable. Larry and the other folks offering train kits for
> sale are definitely doing good things for the train community. On the
> other hand, Larry's posts do come off a bit as a flog, so perhaps we can
> explore how Larry could make those less offensive to folks. I don't want
> to see Larry not be permitted to respond when someone asks, "Hey, what
> trolley creations are out there." He should be able to say, well, take a
> look at my PCC and mention that not only does he think that it's a cool
> model, that if you really like it, you can even buy one from him.
To prevent non-market groups from being over-run with market-type
posts (such as flogs) I think people should follow up to such posts
in personal email whenever appropriate. This should be in the T&C.
If someone asks about where to buy great streetcars, Larry or whoever
should follow up to that individual in personal email to say they
have them for sale. A third party should do the same thing. For
that matter, the original wanted post should go into my .market.wanted
group anyhow. Unless the post is just to ask about Larry's streetcars
(details, advice, etc.) and then that's normal non-market discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> I understand the downsides of confusing regions with language, but unless we
> have a .lang hierarchy, .loc is the best we've got. :-)
Hmmmm... Is a .lang heiarchy such a bad idea? Eventually it would
end up with a mirror of all LUGNET groups under every single .lang
group. Well, to some extent at least. This may be a natural evolution.
Unless you want LUGNET to be an English "community", and leave mirror
communities of other languages up to someone else to create and maintain.
This is a major development topic all in itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Frank Filz writes:
> I guess. I have to say I'm pretty divided on debate issues. I think a
> certain amount of debate is good in the theme areas, but as soon as it
> starts to get "nasty" (as mentioned in another post), or starts to
> broaden or stray, I think it definitely needs to be moved. Given the
> difficulty of moving threads once they get well underway, I would prefer
> policies which moved debates to a .debate group (whether it be a single
> one or a LEGO related one and a totally non-LEGO related one), earlier
> rather than later.
I offer Frank's comments to support my .debate suggestions above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Tamyra Teed writes:
> I also see people as being very intolerant when something is posted that
> they aren't interested in, telling the person to go somewhere else or
> setting followups to another group. What if the person who posted the
> message doesn't subscribe to that group? I believe this is what is
> causing all the groups to be created in many ways. I think we need more
> integration and less segregation.
Great food for thought, Tamyra.
The finer and finer we try to sub-divide different categories of
posts, the harder and harder it becomes to concretely distinguish
one from the next. Eventually the energy of trying to do so becomes
just too much. Simple is better. Ultimately all of us are just
going to have to get used to the fact that LUGNET is becoming a
"very large place". No matter how finely you sub-divide the groups,
they are still going to get a lot of traffic because of
the increasing number of people. All of us will just have to
accept that. It should be left up to us as individuals to decide
how we choose to wade/filter/whatever the groups to get out of it
what we are looking for.
Those wanting to avoid long emails should filter out my name! ;]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Mark Koeberl writes:
> What I would like to suggest is considering a trade experiences group. Ebay has
> its feedback system, but it does have weaknesses. 80 characters sometimes isn't
> enough to explain in detail how someone someone went the extra mile to make a
> trade work. It also limits ones ability to question high handling costs or
> reslove other problems. A group that would allow people to expand on their
> experiences with other traders could be valuable for all involved.
Yes, a very good idea. But I hope this can be combined with the
existing .market.theory group, perhaps renamed to .market.discuss
or just .market, as I've suggested above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those're my comments for now. BTW, you've lost too much of
your life reading this :]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
