 | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) I have a different set of questions: 1. Does it reflect a type of posting that can reasonably be expected on LUGNET, that does not have an obvious home? Sorry, I guess that's just one question. There's little harm in creating new groups, (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) are (...) as (...) I disagree that there is little harm in creating new groups. While I am definitely a compartmentalized dork, I also realize that I will really only look at a limited number of groups (probably about 20 on a regular basis). (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) That's odd. . .I was just thinking that adding more groups might be a problem for Web readers, since that's more clicks to follow each group of interest. For NNTP it's easy (at least with Pine and, I assume, other newsreaders): if the group is (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| Frank Filz wrote in message ... (...) So (...) I disagree, I don't feel that LUGNET is over-compartmentalized at this point, and I find it easier to add groups I want to read to my newsreader and ignore other groups, than to wade through extremely (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) I use Netscape, and at work at least, used to have it only display groups with unread messages. Currently though, my Netscapes are all set up to show all groups (in fact, I don't see a way to tell it to not display groups with no unread (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) Well, .castle certainly is busy, and that may be a good reason to split it. What I am trying to push though is to make sure we think about the split, and not just create a new group based on one small (currently) thread. (...) This is a real (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| |
