Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:51:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1699 times
|
| |
|
|
Sorry this is quite a bit more than a couple of days. I guess we all
got a bit distracted by our other discussion...
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.nntp, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > * 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?
> >
> > Now this is what I am interested in. I was actually just thinking about how
> > annoying the current structure is with LUG's grouped together but all the other
> > groups spread throughout the rest of the subgroups.
> >
> > Their are a couple of issues in that some of the orgs that you mention arn't
> > regional orgs like .ldraw and .cw so a .loc feel to the group doesn't make
> > sense. I would hate to see the .org groups move under the .loc hierarchy. I
> > think that would be a mess and much of the cross-organizational talk that now
> > occurs would be lost.
>
> 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 be around for cross-org talk.
I guess as long as a lugnet.org group remains I am not to worried about
this.
>
> > [...lots of good brainstorming snipped...]
>
> Along the lines of .org and .loc collisions, here are other thoughts that
> have been brewing in my head for the past week or so...
>
> I still worry about the length of the newsgroup names and the number of
> levels (depth) of the overall hierarchy. Every .org or .loc that appears is
> another four characters to type. Every name component in a newsgroup is an
> extra click down the tree. We don't have a plain old lugnet.loc group that
> covers the entire world, so the biggest advantage of having the .loc
> hierarchy is for easy filtering and searching in the .loc areas...but I
> think that's kind of overrated.
>
> I'm entertaining the idea that ".loc" could be removed from all such
> newsgroup names. In other words, "What If?"
>
> If we did that, we could have _very_ simple newsgroup names like:
>
> lugnet.au
> lugnet.us
> lugnet.us.ma.bos
> lugnet.uk
That sounds like it might be a little bit of a mess doesn't it? I mean
if you use NNTP you are going to get hundreds more top level groups and
on the web interface how do you list all the groups so people can find
what they are looking for? I guess you could still have a page that
lists locations but it seems you then lose the hierarchical feel which I
like.
>
> On top of that, doing away with "loc" in the name automagically does away
> with the strong meaning of "local" / "location" / "locality" and leaves the
> namespace more flexible for more organic growth.
>
> Axing the .org hierarchy as well (but keeping lugnet.org itself) and moving
> the regional LUG groups withing their respective lugnet.xx country-based
> hierarchy would also help the alleviate confusion we currently have in cases
> like lugnet.org.us vs. lugnet.loc.us.
I personally am not confused by the .org.* and .loc.* hierarchies, have
you found people to be confused by them?
I wonder in this hierarchy how NELUG fits into it. I see a couple
options:
1. lugnet.us.nelug
That doesn't really help in terms of geographic location over what we
have now plus it gets cluttered up with all the states. Again I like
the current hierarchical structure to things. I fear something like
this might make it harder for people to find what they might be looking
for unless there are a bunch of subpages to LUGNET that help group
common things.
Plus in this structure where does something link Castle World end up.
They arn't regionally based so lugnet.xx.caste.cw doesn't make sense.
Where do you see these groups landing?
2. lugnet.us.ma.nelug
This make a bit more sense except for the fact that we cover 6 states so
which state is it under? Do you put it under one and link to it from
the others? I think that would put to much emphasis on the one state
and make the others seem secondary. This does like a group to its
geographic area though which is good, I just don't know if the benefits
out weigh the negatives.
>
> Thoughts? (If you generally don't like the idea, please think about the
> advantages versus the disadvantages for a couple days before responding.
> If you generally do like the idea, please speak up now and say what you
> like or don't about it.)
I guess my gut says that I generally don't like the idea right now but
like many people I fear change. But often times once a change is made
it becomes easy to see the benefits, unfortuately by that point it is
incredibly difficult to go back.
I guess I would like a bit more information along with examples of how
you see the .loc. and .org. groups coalescing.
Eric Kingsley
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
