| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Matt Hein writes:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > After doing some reading and thinking, I feel that a new group is not
> > needed at this time. In fact, its addition may even lead to more harm
> > than good.
> > I thought Frank made some excellent points in this post:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/admin/suggestions/?n=194
> > which was so good, IMHO, it ought to end up in a FAQ.
> >
> > I was also affected by Bruce's comments, which I've trimmed down to
> > bare bones here:
> >
> > In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Bruce Hietbrink writes:
> > > [...] I would strongly argue against creating a new group for
> > > fantasy. My reasons:
> > >
> > > 1. High traffic. ? [...]
> > > 3. More groups = more duplication. [...] It would end up getting
> > > cross-posted to both.
> > > 4. No need. I've heard no outcry in .castle, where these things most
> > > closely belong. [...]
> > > 5. Greater compartmentalization leads to more noise than signal.
> > > I've seen this again and again on Usenet. Once you start breaking
> > > up into too many sub-groups, you get more complaining about
> > > incorrect placement of posts than you do real posts. This tends to
> > > lead to arguing, hurt feelings, and a general state of unwelcome [...]
> >
> > Regarding number 5 scenario above...
> > [gasp] That would *never* happen on LUGNET!! ;-)
> >
> > In the future, I think I'd be more open to the idea of adding a
> > build.fiction group.
>
> Build.fiction, fantasy, what's the difference? In the long run,
> I would consider both to really fit in the same categoory, since,
> they're both fiction, and of course, fantasy can really fit into
> any genre is you stop to think about it.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the long run'...
Just to clarify, adding a group called build.fiction would have the intent
of attracting posters whose building may be inspired by: TRON, Blade Runner,
Hello Kitty, Le Morte D'Arthur, Monty Python, Dr. Seuss, Richard Scarry,
Hansel and Gretel, Fred Flinstone, Romeo and Juliet, The Odyssey, Sherlock
Homes, James Bond, Vampire Chronicles, The Brady Bunch, or whatever. A wide
range of genres. So, it would cease to be an issue as to whether or not
Pern books fit into Fantasy.
While a build.fiction group is more appealing to me because it would prevent
future arguments about genre, it also holds the potential awkwardness of
putting many different types of modelers together. Personally, I don't think
that would be a problem. And, actually, I think such a group would spark a
good deal of creative building. But experience has taught us to be very wary
of adding new groups.
Prior to creation of build.military, those guys had asked for it many times.
Over the course of months, we watched the situation. I didn't add it until I
was really comfortable with the idea.
> However, I disagree with some of the points made above.
> Sure, the addition of one more group wouldn't really cause concerns
> of cross posting. I.e, Star Wars and space makes a good example of
> this!
> I don't really see a lot of complaints about these issues when it comes
> to space/ star wars, but then again, these are themes.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, but.. I will point out that Star
Wars is a special case in that an existing fan community came to join LUGNET
when TLC began their licencing endeavor. There was a clear potential for
inflow of heavy traffic, and possibly culture clash.
And also, yes, they are 2 different LEGO themes. BTW, I believe it's the
lit./fiction aspect of Star Wars that distinguishes it from the general
'Space' category, where, in contrast, just about anything goes.
> what about those groups that get generally no posting at all, such as
> Harry Potter, Ninja, Underground, etc. I can go on and on about these,
> so why not just take a few of these newsgroups, toss them, and create
> a new one instead?
Because it's not a matter of finite availablity.
> It would make Lugnet a bit more navigatable,
how so?
> Harry Potter would really fit in the Fantasy them anyway...Ninja
> could stick back at castle, since, obviously, most Ninja builders
> are lurkers or posters at .castle.
>
> Well, this is another of my opinions, and I stand strong in that,
> but I think this would be a good cause for this. Theme based groups
> are good and all, but when groups like Jack Stone and Bionicle come
> up I ask myself, Is there any need?
I agree that there are some groups here whose creation may not have been
needed. But Bionicle isn't one of them. Just as Star Wars was new in
attracting a licencing crowd, Bionicle arrived having been marketed by TLC
to attract a new type of enthusiast. It's natural for such newcomers to need
thier own area. And it's natural for their sudden arrival on a scene to be
more noticable to existing readers for its difference than frequency.
Group creation isn't as simple as traffic numbers. There are groups with no
traffic at all that I consider to be extremely important to have in place,
namely, the loc. groups. It's good for a new visitor to find their group
allready defined. That's one reason we will keep some product newsgroups,
even if not often used. ie SCALA
-Suz
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) Build.fiction, fantasy, what's the difference? In the long run, I would consider both to really fit in the same categoory, since, they're both fiction, and of course, fantasy can really fit into any genre is you stop to think about it. (...) (22 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
