 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Do you mean the kind of cross-org talk that happens in groups like lugnet.org and lugnet.org.xx, or the kind that happens when someone from one org posts in another org's group? I don't see a reason why lugnet.org couldn't and shouldn't still (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I just want to try to curb kneejerk reactions. It would be a big change, not without disadvantages, but I think for the better in the long run, unless I'm missing something. --Todd (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I like the idea, so I'm piping up now ;~). One of the main reasons we asked for .org.au was to stop Australian .market-style flogs from getting lost in the USian traffic. This was always (IMHO) a fairly awkward solution, and I don't think it (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.org.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Hmmm. I'm not sure we need a .au.org. Couldn't we just have .au.LegOz, .au.SLUG, .au.BUG, .au.MUG, etc., with any national stuff just going in .au.LegOz? This forces people to think about which organisation they're posting to / about. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.org.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I'd be happy with .au.LegOz. I'd think regional LUG discussion could go in .au.nsw, .au.vic, .au.qld etc, avoiding too much clutter. Does .au.market sound like a goer (pending Todd's okay)? (...) (Belches happily.) (...) My monumental 99.95% (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.org.au)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I like this, but it would be important that they were all presented together on the web page so that it was obvious they were similar in nature. (...) OK, so where will .nelug (for example) sit? If you slap it under .us it's too broad an (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) (quoting (URL) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) No knee jerk reactions but I just wanted to clarify something in terms of the orgs and how they fit into this hierarchy. For example would NELUG fit into the hierarchy as lugnet.us.nelug or would it be something different? I have (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) Some disadvantages: - On browsers which present the newsgroup list as a hierarchical tree, it's nice to just skip the whole .loc hierarchy - An alpha sort of the newsgroups won't keep the loc groups together In fact, I've actually been (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
(...) I agree. Keep the .loc prefix. But it might be a good idea to move all the regional "org" groups under .loc, so there's only one geographical hierarchy. And then the train.org can be org.train - the org section would only be for worldwide (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
|
Sorry this is quite a bit more than a couple of days. I guess we all got a bit distracted by our other discussion... (...) I guess as long as a lugnet.org group remains I am not to worried about this. (...) That sounds like it might be a little bit (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
