 | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed? —Simon Robinson
|
| | | (...) Very easily I'd say - that's happened to me at first. When I was new to lugnet one of the first things I did was look for local groups near to me - I found the section for my part of the UK - I think it was the London list and found it was (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | What little loc groups are best for —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) OK, so crossposting is one way that people can find the big group from the smaller groups. BTW, do you remember why you never bothered to check out the main loc.uk group initially (don't worry, no one is going to laugh or criticise...just want (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | In article <MPG.11a66ea25894cd6...gnet.com>, Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> writes (...) Yes, this is good. Possibly a bit more prominence could be given to the links in the top left, but it shows you where the action is :-) (...) This is useful (...) (26 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | (...) Yes, it is - but bear in mind in my case it was only a chance crossposting, and it happened quite a while after I joined lugnet. (I can't remember how long after, but you can probably easily find out by looking at the gap between when I (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Well, the main UK group doesn't actually cover the same areas as the smaller groups -- it does geographically, to some extent -- but not topically. That is to say, the smaller groups are for super-localised discussions (where something is so (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes and yes. (...) But there's no text that even indicates the numbers are related to the sizes of the discussion groups :) (...) Ah - but what is the correct way of using the groups? If most people in a country are happy with how they are (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) OK. Using the groups "correctly" or "incorrectly" is not a good word-choice then. More accurately would be "using or not using the groups to their full advantage." --Todd (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Simon, Any thoughts on how the introductory postings could be improved? Here's how message #1 starts for (just to pick one at random) Dover, Kent, England: --Todd ___...___ Welcome to lugnet.loc.uk.en.kt.dov, a LUGNET discussion group. (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What little loc groups are best for —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | (...) My own suggestion would be something like this. Roughly what I've changed is to remove the technical-looking lines and replace them by more friendly sounding information. At the same time, though, I think the info should be in the pages (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
