 | | Re: New Bulk Ordering Newsgroup?
|
|
Todd: My apologies for not getting back to you sooner - I'm catching up on my reading today. (...) Well, really just general discussion of the bulk products. I don't think that everything that is said about bulk bricks really needs to go to Lego (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Dave Low <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> wrote in message news:G9t0tt.5BE@lugnet.com... (...) (.loc.au.vic), (...) 1 per (...) think (...) level. >> > Even if we get our LUGs in the .org hierarchy (below), I think we still >> >need state groups (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I think that lugnet.debate would be useful for on-topic controversy (eg perennial faves "does Lego encourage violence?", "why are all minifigs yellow?", "how much does juniorisation suck?"). It should be a default skip-filter though, as should (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I agree with Ross. Archive all sub-state groups, retain loc.au.xxx (state-level groups), allow posting at state-level groups (for "who's booking the meeting hall?" type questions). .org.au seems to be working okay for organisation/market (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
<snip> (...) praise. (...) Go ahead you've got my vote on both. <snip> (...) Perfect, I'd subscribe to it in a New York minute! <snip> There was a thread a couple months ago about possibly reorganizing the (...) Actually I think that doing this (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) In some groups, the amount of traffic can matter more. But after reading how Todd Lehman set up lugnet.lego.direct, it matters less. Consider the lugnet.scala group: it has almost no traffic, but it serves to allow discussion regarding a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Nonononono, nobody would be required to post raving praise to .rave; the rave area would just be safe haven for raving -- a place where you can't (shouldn't) be chastised for saying nice things, or where you can go to always read nice things. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) (I like Paul's) OR havesome/wantsome OR have/want OR outgoing/incoming OR outbox/inbox OR heressome/needsome OR helpyerself/gimme OR gottago/lookinfer :-) -Jon (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I'm not sure it would be a good idea to add either of these groups. On the surface it seems great...but I see a potential let-down. When I read discussions in Lugnet, it seems to me that positive and negative conversations add to the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Hello Todd, hello everybody, (...) Go ahead and do that. In the case of Germany, I have wondered from the very beginning, how we three or so online AFOLs in the Stuttgart area should fill a newsgroup. Traffic in the loc.de newsgroup is currently (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
"Mike Petrucelli" <lordinsanity@usa.net> wrote in message news:G9r77D.Dor@lugnet.com... (...) [snip] (...) of (...) questions (...) who (...) I understand the desire to keep the lugnet.lego.direct newsgroup focused. However, I think that this (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
(...) This is a good point... this (reply restriction idea) will stop threads from getting longer (arguably keeping them on-topic), but will encourage threads getting wider, which may well cause a clarity loss. James (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) A good thing (if the posts are clearly marked.) :-). However I am not sure what a suitable disclaimer wording would be. I also suggested having a seperate group for speculations of the 'Article from tommorow' type nature so that people reading (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Reducing the level of chatter in lugnet.lego.direct
|
|
What about in the case of where one person wishes to discuss further or add info that they feel is relevant to someone's post, when it is clearly possible that additional info could benefit the discussion at hand? It would feel a bit frustrating to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Interesting ideas. I look forward to the changes coming to Lugnet. Being serious, I think the Rant newsgroup should be .racers. Or something else that clearly implies the rant and upset-at-Lego sentiments immediately. Just a suggestion that likely (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
There are entirely too many groups now. If you condense the .loc groups there are still too many groups. Condense the top level groups as much as possible (1), eleminate most of the subgroups. Combine some of the theme groups. I appreciate that the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(My newsreader objected to my attempt to reply to Todd's original message, so I'm replying to a followup) (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
