| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com (John VanZwieten) writes:
> Hmm. It may take a while for me to warm up to this setup.
Days, weeks, months, or years?
> I actually like
> having the discussion of models/parts separate from the cad.dat group.
> When I hear people raving about a model I might find interesting, then
> I'm motivated to check it out on cad.dat. If a discussion about a part
> starts up, its nice that people other than part authors join the
> discussion, maybe to make a point about numbering systems, desired part
> quality, etc. I think it's important to have our programmers see what
> kinds of issues come up related to parts, but they probably don't check
> most of the actual .dat posts (just guessing here, feel free to set me
> straight.)
Not necessarily disagreeing, but isn't it likely that a developer who cares
about these issues would read the other groups, and that a developer who
does not care about these issues would ignore the issues even if they came
up in the same group?
Some other considerations...
The News-by-Mail and digest features of the groups,
http://www.lugnet.com/news/mail/
make it very possible to stay intimately involved with one set of subgroups
and loosely involved -- to varying customizable degrees -- with other
subgroups.
For example, a hard-core parts author might read and participate in
.parts & .parts.prim using an NNTP newsreader, but choose to receive
.ideas in digest form twice daily, .models once daily, and the others
weekly. A hard-core model builder might read .models and .models.sets
and .ideas via NNTP, but choose to receive .parts via e-mail digest,
and .parts.prim not at all (maybe too geeky).
A little splittage goes a long way toward
- better organization of discussions
- better individual customization of information flow -- temporally as
well as on/off
- stronger cohesiveness between data and related discussions
> The main reason I see for separating parts and sets is that those groups
> will function as archives for the part/set .dat files. If I want to see
> what parts have been posted since the last official update, I could check
> the cad.dat.parts and have the previous 20 parts listed in a row (looking
> from the web viewing). If the discussion is mixed with the .dat content,
> I might have to wade through hundreds of posts to find the last 20 parts
> posted.
Does the web interface have to present posts in the group the way it
currently does forever? What if you didn't have to wade through hundreds
of posts to find the last 20 parts posted? It's unacceptable to me if the
web interface -doesn't- help filter and organize things.
> I'd hate to see the .cad discussion overly fragmented by spreading it
> over 6 different groups. If we were at the point where we were getting
> 50 posts/day about parts, 50/day about ldraw.org, 50/day about set posts,
> etc. I could see splitting the discussion. But at this point I think the
> two discussion groups manage the level of discussion pretty well.
Part of the reason the discussion levels are as low as they are (~90
posts/week in .cad and ~250 posts/week in .cad.dev) is because there are
only two groups, with each group covering a fairly wide range of topics.
Current traffic levels aren't really very good predictors of future traffic
levels after a split. If you have N posts/day in group x.y and you create
x.y.z1 and x.y.z2, you end up with <N posts/day in x.y but >N posts/day in
x.y* overall. There's no good formula for predicting the volume after a
split, but it's exponential with the exponent being usually between 1.2 and
1.5 for each layer of splitting.
Note that there have been days where all of the lugnet.* groups combined
have surpassed daily RTL traffic by a wide margin.
The healthy long-term way to think of a group split is not as a split but
as adding new areas for growth that weren't there before. I think the only
real "spin-off" danger would be a new newsgroup for LDraw software separate
from .cad.dev -- that's why I listed it as reserved for future expansion
someday if/when the time is right.
> Simply having a cad.dat.parts group with followups to cad.dev would solve
> the problem of having to change the followup field.
So would not creating a new group for parts and just posting them to
.cad.dev instead. :)
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| Hmm. It may take a while for me to warm up to this setup. I actually like having the discussion of models/parts separate from the cad.dat group. When I hear people raving about a model I might find interesting, then I'm motivated to check it out on (...) (25 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
