| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, William R. Ward writes:
> Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> writes:
> > LUGNET Admin wrote:
> > > This is sounding like a good plan. build.fantasy
> > >
> > > Of course, this may invite space folks to request build.sci-fi... there • are
> > > probably plenty of them who would argue that sci-fi = space about as much • as
> > > fantasy = castle.
> >
> > Some questions though to ask before adding a new group are (and some
> > good examples):
>
> 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, especially if it helps foster traffic that
> otherwise had no place to be.
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). So
if there is too much compartmentalization, I will not read a lot of stuff.
So my question again is do we really need a group to discuss Pern in? Right
now, I say no. If a long discussion develops and there seems to be a wide
interest in it, and folks feel like it isn't just a side bar discussion, only
then does it need a new group.
If we added a new group for every discussion which seemed to have no place,
then almost every post in lugnet.general should either not be there (because a
group does already exist), or should immediately be followed by the creation of
a new group. In other words, part of what I am saying is that if there really
seems to be no place for a discussion, lugnet.general is the place.
Now I suppose the problem of many groups is less for folks who use the web
interface (where you can totally turn off compartmentalization by just reading
everything at the top level).
Frank
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
