| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, john_vanzwieten@msn.com (John VanZwieten) writes:
> > 2. Should discussion be allowed or prevented in these groups? That is,
> > should follow-ups to postings be directed to a different group, namely
> > either lugnet.cad or lugnet.cad.dev? (See
> > http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dev:1343
> > for reasons in support of allowing discussion in the groups.)
>
> IMHO the main reason for dividing up cad.dat is to create compact archives of
> parts, sets, MOC's, etc. If discussion were going to be in the same group as
> the .dat posts, I would just as soon allow parts to be posted directly to
> cad.dev, and models,sets,scenes posted directly to lugnet.cad. [...]
Well, that would kind of bring things full-circle then, huh? :) The reason
for dividing up .cad.dat, BTW, is (a) to help organize [at a very
superficial first-order layer] postings about parts, models, ideas, etc.,
and (b) to help focus the ensuing discussions.
Remember, not everyone wants to see anything (or everything) about models or
to see anything/everything about parts. And even people who do want to see
it all will want to see things at different relative frequencies. Me, for
example, I'd like to see and talk about new models and idea-snippets daily,
but new parts only weekly...and I'll probably follow along in the parts
discussions only cursorily...just enough not to remain totally clueless.
Note that even separate data-only groups will in the best case scenario grow
messy over time. That's why they're just a first-order of approximation at
organizing things, with future web support and other downloadables at
ldraw.org (or wherever) providing the real organizing layers. The .cad.dat
groups are just a raw repository...not intended to be browseable. And
that's why holding follow-up discussions there makes so much more sense.
If the discussions which ensue after, say, a post about a model take place
outside of the group that the model was posted in, then the group isn't
really helping much to organize things.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) I like the above groups and follow-ups quite well. You might consider adding lugnet.cad.dat.models.alt (followup-to lugnet.cad). (...) Unless you wanted a lugnet.cad-dat.* heirarchy. Either way works. (...) IMHO the main reason for dividing up (...) (26 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
