| |
On Fri, 14 May 1999 21:02:14 GMT, Todd Lehman uttered the following
profundities...
> In lugnet.loc.uk, richard.dee@virgin.net (Richard Dee) writes:
> > > We should talk (openly, here) about how to come up with a clean solution
> > > to the problem of people not finding the loc.uk group (if indeed that is
> > > the problem).
> >
> > One group for each county, country, (count Channel Islands and IOM
> > as a country), and major city, such as Manchester, Edinburgh, etc.
> > 2 for London, 1 north, 1 for south. (Thames as a natural barrier).
> > Any more localised groups can be quite easily covered by a
> > county group. This would reduce it from 83? to about 30 or so?
>
> Let's see. I'll do my best to interpret what I think Richard is suggesting:
>
> Combine or split Net gain
> ======================================= ========
> Channel Islands & IOM -> CI&IOM -1
> London -> North London & South London +1
> Reading & Windsor -> Berkshire -1
> Exeter & Plymouth & Torbay -> Devonshire -1
> Dover & Rochester -> Kent -1
> Birmingham & Coventry -> West Midlands -1
> Bradford & Leeds -> West Yorkshire -1
> Boston & Lincoln -> Lincolnshire -1
> ========
> -6
>
> So if I'm understanding things correctly (maybe I'm not), this would bring
> the number of UK groups down from 83 to 77?
>
> Note that in counties such as Durham, Lothian, Clwyd, etc., where there is
> only a single city represented (this is the case in 9 out of 10 of the
> counties) there is actually only 1 group -- the counties don't themselves
> have groups, and that's why the number wouldn't go down to 30 -- because
> there aren't 50 groups for counties.
>
> A side question -- am I misunderstanding what a county is? Are there other,
> larger administrative divisions higher up than the 46 listed here?--
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/loc/uk/en/
>
> But anyway, back to the real issue -- I was hoping to see ideas on how to
> solve the problem about people not finding the loc.uk group, rather than how
> to reduce the number of groups. There could be 20 UK groups or 2,000 UK
> groups and the problem of finding the main group would still exist.
>
> --Todd
I've been busy preparing for a trip, so haven't devoted the
necessary time to research completely. Upon my return, I will
provide a list which I think might be better. IMO better!!!!
I fully understand the logic behind your current group arrangement.
There are long-term goals involved. The desire is to foster
smaller, regionalised, local focus groups, aiding club formation,
etc. I will take that into consideration.
(I am actually subscribed to this group by e-mail, but won't
have web access, just e-mail. Can I respond with just a
"reply-to?")
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: All UK Groups subscribed?
|
| (...) Let's see. I'll do my best to interpret what I think Richard is suggesting: Combine or split Net gain ===...=== ======== Channel Islands & IOM -> CI&IOM -1 London -> North London & South London +1 Reading & Windsor -> Berkshire -1 Exeter & (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.admin.general)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
